Kania, J. - (1.) These appeals arise from the decision of a Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka in Writ Appeals Nos. 1101 to 1144 of 1979. It appears that the Govermnent of Karnataka decided to adopt a policy to encourage rapid industrialisation. An Order No. CI 58 FMI 69 dated 30th June, 1969 was issued which recited that the Government, namely, the Government of Karnataka was committed to a policy of rapid industrialisation and that, in pursuance thereof, the Government had on 30th November, 1966, issued directions indicating the incentives that would be given to entrepreneurs starting new industries in the Mysore State. The material part of the said order, for our purposes, runs thus:-"Consequently, the Governor of Mysore is pleased to sanction the following incentives and concessions to the entrepreneurs for starting new industries in Mysore State:- (1) Sales Tax- A cash refund will be allowed on all sales tax paid by a new industry on raw materials purchased by it for the first 5 (five) years from the date the industry goes into production, eligibility to the concessions being determined on the basis of a certificate to be issued by the Department of Industries and Commerce ........................."
(2.) By an order dated 11th August, 1975, the procedure was prescribed for obtaining the concessions given under the orders referred to earlier. On 12th January, 1977, the Government of Karnataka issued another order which recited that the reasons for making the said order of 12th January, 1977 were that the scheme of concessions adopted by the Government earlier had given room for many types of misuse and the earlier orders 'had not prescribed any ceiling limits or restrictions on the quantum of refund of sales tax or concessions to be granted. The said order dated 12th January, 1977, inter alia, provided as under:- "(i) The concession of refund of sales tax on raw materials used by new enterprises should be limited to 10 per cent of the cost of fixed assets per year, thus not exceeding the total of 50 per cent over a period of five years for which the concession is available. Where the annual sales tax paid on raw materials is less than 10 per cent of the cost of the fixed assets according to the original value, the concession will be limited to the actual sales tax paid ..................................."
(3.) Several persons claimed that they had started new industrial units in the State on the assurance extended or because of the concessions granted to them, inter alia, under the said order dated 30th June, 1969. They filed writ petitions before the High Court of Karnataka claiming that the industrial undertakings started between 30th June, 1969 when the order dated 12th June, 1969 came into effect and before the order dated 12th January, 1977 was issued could not be deprived of the concessions given to them by the former order as the said grant of concessions constituted a promissory estoppel against the Government on the basis of which they had acted by starting new industries requiring investment of considerable funds and the Government was not entitled to go back on that promise as it had sought to do by the order dated 12th January, 1977. A learned single Judge of the Karnataka High Court, before whom these writ petitions were filed, upheld the aforesaid contention of the petitioners urged before him relying mainly on the rulings of this Court in Union of India v. Indo Afghan Agencies Limited, (1968) 2 SCR 366 Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Ulhasnagar Municipal Council, (1970) 3 SCR 854 and the ruling in Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1979 SC 621. In the concluding portion of his judgment, the learned Judge clarified that he had not examined the correctness of the individual claims made by the petitioners and that these claims would have to be examined by the competent authorities. He further clarified that the order dated 12th January, 1977 would undoubtedly apply to industries started after that date. The learned trial Judge allowed the writ petitions and granted relief on the basis set out earlier. An appeal preferred by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Dharwar, Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and the Government of Karnataka before a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court was dismissed by that Court which agreed with the reasoning of the learned trial Judge. It is from this decision that the present appeals arise.;