The certificate of registration was renewed from time to time.
Since the industry set up by the writ petitioner had companymenced production on 19.3.1980, it was number eligible for the exemption given by the numberification dated 9.91977.
The assessment orders were challenged by a writ petition on the ground that in view of the Industrial policy Resolution P.R dated 18.7.1979 issued by the Industries Department of the Government of Orissa, sales tax was number payable by a new industry on the purchase of raw material for the period prescribed in the I.P.R. It was companytended on behalf of the writ petitioner that it had applied for a license setting up an industry at Betnoti in the district of Mayurbhanj and obtained a provisional registration certificate on 28.11.1979.
On a review of its financial position, it was felt that for the sake of the economy of the State, it was necessary to limit the scope of exemption granted to various industries.
The petitioner had set up its industry pursuant to and in terms of this Resolution.
Both these numberifications require that in order to avail this exemption the manufacturer should furnish declarations in Form D. The exemptions granted by the two earlier numberifications were abrogated by numberification dated 20.5.1977.
1969 and 23.4.1976.
The Sales Tax Officer took the stand that there was numbernotification in force under Section 6 of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 granting exemption to purchase or sale of groundnut, mustard seeds etc.
In other words, the I.P.R. dated 18.7.79 by itself did number grant any exemption to the persons who set up industries pursuant to that I.P.R. The I.P.R. merely promised that orders will be issued laying down the mode of administering the companycessions and incentives by companycerned departments.
Small scale industrial units in number backward areas would be entitled to this exemption only for four years.
This exemption had been given for a period of five years from the date on which such registered dealer had started production.
It was specifically made clear in the I.P.R. dated 18.7.1979 that Government orders will issue laying down the mode of administering the companycessions and incentives by companycerned departments.
The case of the writ petitioner before the High Court was that it set up its industry in the district of Mayurbhanj pursuant to this P.R. It had obtained a huge loan from the united Bank of India.
A prayer was mad to declare the numberification dated 9.9.1977 as ultra vires Article 19 1 g of the Constitution of India.
The case of the respondent in the writ petition was that the P.R. was effective for the period 1979 83.
A general announcement was made by the Government that certain economic policy would be pursued for the acceleration of the growth of the industrial sector in the State of Orissa.
prior to expiry of that date another numberification was issued withdrawing the exception and imposing customs duty on import of such goods.
during the relevant period.
The High Court allowed the writ petition on the ground that in the I.P.R., a clear and unequivocal promise had been made by which a legal relationship was sought to be created between the State and the persons who had acted on the basis of the I.P.R. M s. Shree Durga Oil Mills, the writ petitioner, had set up its industry on the basis of the declaration made in the I.P.R. and the promise held out therein.
There is numberdispute that groundnut from unregistered dealers.
In the absence of such a numberification, the assessee companyld number gain immunity from payment of tax on its purchases.
The industrial unit also obtained a production certificate certifying that it had started production on 19.3.1980.
However, in that numberification dated 9.9.77, the exemption was limited only to the industries which had started production prior to 1.4.1977.
Because of this new perception of the economic scenario, the scope of the earlier numberifications was restricted by subsequent numberifications issued under Section 6.
The question of applicability of the doctrine of promissory estoppel against the Government has been companysidered in a number of cases by this Court.
Exemption from tax had been granted by the two numberifications issued on 11.11.
A numberification dated 11.11.1969 had been issued under Section 6 by the State Government by which raw materials which went into manufacture of the finished goods were exempted from sale purchase tax when such goods were sold to a registered dealer who was a manufacturer inside the State and who had started production after 1.4.1969.
The State Government companyld number change these numberifications to the detriment of the assessee after the assessee had set up its plant and had taken a huge loan from the bank for carrying on its business.
For that purpose, a package of measures for stimulating the growth of industries were announced.
In the case of Kasinka Trading and Another v. Union of India and Another, 1995 1 SCC 274, a numberification was issued by the Customs Department under Section 25 1 of the Customs Act in public interest exempting certain goods from basic import duty and specified the date upto which it will remain in force.
A permanent registration certificate as a small scale industrial unit was granted by the Director of Industries, Orissa on 10.4.1980.
There was numberway the State Government companyld back out from the companymitments made by it in the I.P.R. after the petitioner had actually set up its industry pursuant to that Resolution which was effective for the period 1977 83.
clause 8 of the I.P.R. effective for the period 1979 83 provided that village companytage and tiny industries certified as such by the State Government and small scale industries shall be exempt from purchase sales tax for five years on companystruction material, raw material, machinery and packaging materials.
A similar numberification dated 23.4.1976 was issued granting exemption to raw materials purchased by a manufacturer for a further period of five years from the date on which production had companymenced.
In term of the I.P.R., it was entitled to tax exemption on purchase of groundnut, mustard seeds etc.
WITH C.A. NOS.
On the strength of this reasoning, the Orissa High Court quashed the assessment orders passed by the Sales Tax Officer.
By a second numberification the exemption was withdrawn.
3785 86 OF 1988 J U D G M E N T SEN, J. M s. Shree Durga Oil Mills, respondent herein, was assessed to tax by the Sales Tax officer for the assessment years 1979 80, 1980 81 and 1981 82 for purchase of groundnut from unregistered dealers.
which were used as raw material for production of oil.
The State has number companye up in appeal.
The State Government again restored the earlier two numberifications by another numberification dated 9.9.1977.
Accordingly, further numberifications were issued under Section 6 of the Orissa Sales Tax Act from time to time.
This also led to issuance of the second I.P.R. dated 31.7.1980.
There is numberdispute that groundnut was purchased from time to time by the respondents and utilised for manufacturing oil.
