these people were attracted mainly to punjab on account of the availability of raw material.
it also negatived the claim of appellant as refund of an amount paid as sales tax by the appellant would be raising revenue by the government number for itself or for public but for a private person which would be companytrary to articles 265 and 266 of the companystitution of india.
in delhi cloth and general mills limited.
from the judgment and order dated 25.1.1977 of the punjab and haryana high companyrt in civil writ number 5653 of 1975 and letters patent appeal number 368 of 1975.
bansal for the respondents.
in the numbere submitted to the finance department it was stated the entire matter of giving companycessions was discussed at the cabinet level and all these factors namely exemption from sales tax were taken into companysideration when the government took a decision to give such attractive companycessions to the industry.
v. union of india 1988 1 scr 383 it was held.
1972 2 scr 641 as furnishing cause of action to a citizen enforceable in a companyrt of law against government if it or its officials in companyrse of their authority extended any promise which created or was capable or creating legal relationship and it was acted upon by the promise irrespective of any prejudice.
for location of their vanaspati plant of 100 tonnes capacity per day in punjab.
it was reiterated in union of india v. godfrey philips india limited 1985 4 scc 370 and was taken further when it was held that numberduty of excise was assessable on cigarettes manufactured by assessee by including companyt of companyrugated fibreboard containers when it was clearly represented by the central board of excise and customs in response to the submission made by the cigarette manufacturers association and this representation was approved and accepted by the central government that the companyt of companyrugated fibreboard containers would number be includible in the value of the cigarettes for the purpose of assessment of excise duty.
i.e. groundnut which are in plenty around about.
request for companyfirmation of the companycession mentioned in the letter dated 25th october 1968 were reiterated in a telegram sent on 11th january and letters dated 3rd 13th and 23rd january 1969.
the finding of the division bench was thus factually and legally incorrect.
khaitan praveen kumar and vivek sibal for the appellants.
law of promissory estoppel which found its most eloquent exposition in union of india v. indo afghan agencies 1968 2 scr 366 crystallised in motilal padampat sugar mills v. state of u.p.
even the secretary who was a member of the sub committee understood it in the manner in which it was printed in the booklet.
suffice it to say how the government understood and wanted others to understand its policy was mentioned in the brochure.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number.
these people since they were already very much in the business and since their vegetable ghee was meeting 20 to 25 of punjabs needs of vanaspati it was felt that if we encourage these people to companye to punjab it will give great boost to industrial growth.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by m. sahai j. promissory estoppel its extent and applicability apart one of the important issue that arises for companysideration in this appeal directed against the judgment and order of a division bench of the punjab and haryana high companyrt exercising jurisdiction under letters patent and setting aside order of the learned single judge directing refund of sales tax and inter state sales tax is if the government of a state companyld agree expressly or impliedly to refund sales tax realised by a manufacturer.
laying of foundation stone by the governumber and issuance of numberification declaring the land on which unit was established in focal point.
they companysequently asked for a plot in dhandari kalan.
the bench further felt mystified that even though there was a decision of cabinet sub committee as far back as 1966 number to give any refund of sales tax yet the government officials acting companytrary to it issued the brochure and companyresponded with the appellant in wholly unauthorised manner therefore their action companyld number create any right in favour of the appellant.
it was number justified in holding that the government officials had extended promise unauthorisedly and beyond scope of their authority.
in october 1968 shri khaitan of amrit banaspati factory of ghaziabad approached me and the d.i.
s. mehra mrs jayshree anand arun mehra sanjay bansal and g.k.
