Sushanta Chatterji, J. - (1.) The present Rule was issued on 23-12-80 at the instance of the writ petitioners challenging the Notification dated November 1, 1980 and the Notification dated June 19,1980 and the proceedings relating to demand of basic duty of custom and countervailing in excess of Rs. 2.37 P. per kg. on the 597 bales of Viscose Staple Fibre imported by the petitioner No. 1 per RSS "Link Harmony" and seeking other consequential reliefs on the ground that the Notifications dated January 5, 1979 as amended by Notification dated October 30, 1979, it was clearly mentioned that exemption granted thereunder would remain in force upto and inclusive of December 31, 1980. The said representations were made by the Government of India fully knowing that the importers of Viscose Staple Fibre would be acting thereupon. It is alleged that the petitioner No. 1, in fact, acted on the basis of representation made by the respondent No. 1 in the said Notifications, and entered into a contract for import of Viscose Staple Fibre and open Letter of Credit in respect thereof. It is further alleged that thus acting on the basis of the representations made by the respondent No. 1, Union of India and/or the respondent No. 2 the petitioner No. 1 altered its position to its prejudice. Accordingly, the respondents are bound by the promises and/or representations made in the said earlier notifications, whereas by the impugned notifications, the respondents are seeking to go back and/or are resiling from promises and/or representations and the proceedings as challenged in the writ petition are illegal and void.
(2.) Mr. Bajoria, the learned Counsel for the petitioners has made lengthy submissions to the extent that the present case is a case of promissory estoppel and he has drawn the attention of the Court to a decision (Bharat Commerce and Industries v. Union of India & Ors.) and (Pournami Oil Mills Etc. v. State of Kerala and Anr.). According to him, the subsequent notifications cannot be enforced and the petitioners are not supposed to pay the duties as claimed thereby. He has tried to convince this Court that in a proper case Government is estopped to demand and levy taxes and duties and in the domain of revenue matters the acceptance of the theory of promissory estoppel is an accomplished fact.
(3.) By looking to the materials on record in details, this Court is of the view that in order to take the benefits of promissory estoppel, the petitioners have got to demonstrate as to how they have been affected and as to how there is prejudice towards their rights. It has got to be proved beyond doubts that by the proposed actions, the petitioners' rights have been affected in such a way that they may not sustain the loss. It is not open to them to challenge the notification as it is. The Govenment has rights and to formulate its policy time to time by issuing appropriate notification. Such issuance of a notification is not open to challenge unless it is proved that upon a promise, the petitioner has acted and there is prejudice towards its interest by breach of the said promise. The petitioners have also acted to prove that there will be no undue enrichment by getting the reliefs from the Court. Any additional duty imposed may have been passed over to the consumers and the petitioners cannot take double benefits thereby.;