S. N. Bhargava, J. - (1.) AS per the facts mentioned in the memo of writ petition, the petitioner is a partnership firm carrying on the business of oil extraction at Bharatpur. The State of Rajasthan in exercise of powers conferred by subsection (5) of section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1956") vide notification dated May 23, 1987 notified Sales Tax Incentive Scheme for Industries, 1987 and exempted the industrial units from payment of tax on sales made in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, of the goods manufactured by them, within the State. The said scheme came into operation w. e. f. March 5, 1987 and was to remain in force till March 31, 1992. Again on July 6, 1989, in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (2) of section 4 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1954"), the State Government notified the Sales Tax New Incentive Scheme for Industries, 1989 and exempted the industrial units from payment of tax on the sales of goods manufactured by them within the State in the manner and to the extent and for the period as covered by this notification. It was further mentioned that operation of this new incentive scheme shall be deemed to have started w. e. f. March 5, 1987 and shall remain in force up to March 31, 1992. These incentive schemes were intended to give protection to certain industries by giving them tax concession and to encourage new industries in the State of Rajasthan.
(2.) THE petitioner, believing the unequivocal promise given by the Government, obtained an industrial plot No. A-6 in Bharatpur, which is developed by RIICO and obtained possession thereof on February 16, 1989. THE petitioner deposited the development charges and lease money to RIICO and invested a sum of Rs. 8 lakhs in the construction of building for running the oil industry and also invested a sum of Rs. 19 lakhs approximately on the machines. THE petitioner finally set up a totally automatic plant by March, 1990 and could start its production only on and from May 11, 1990. THE petitioner moved an application on May 16, 1990 in the prescribed form along with relevant documents for exempting the petitioner's product from sales tax under the Sales Tax New Incentive Scheme for Industries, 1989 but the Commercial Taxes Officer, Bharatpur, refused to accept the said application and stated that now oil industries are not covered under the said scheme. On enquiry, the petitioner came to know that the notification had been issued on May 7, 1990 by way of amendment providing that the new scheme will not be applicable to oil extraction or manufacturing industries and thereafter, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition on May 28, 1990 seeking to get the amendment notification dated May 7, 1990 quashed. Notices were issued on June 12, 1990 to show cause as to why this writ petition should not be admitted and disposed of. An interim stay order was also passed to the effect that the non-petitioners were directed to continue the exemption under the Sales Tax New Incentive Scheme for Industries to the petitioner provided the petitioner famishes a bank guarantee in the sum of Rs. 1 lakh and on the condition that the petitioner maintains regular accounts on the basis of which sales tax will be calculated. THE said stay order was confirmed by this Court vide order dated June 10, 1991. After hearing the parties, the court observed that the provisions of notification dated May 7, 1990 shall not be applicable so far as the petitioner-industry is concerned provided it furnishes solvent security in the sum of Rs. 1 lakh. Reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents on August 7, 1990 wherein it has been submitted that the two incentive schemes were notified in public interest. Since the petitioner started its commercial production only on May 11, 1990 and before that the notification dated May 7, 1990, was issued, stating that the incentive scheme will not be applicable to oil extraction or manufacturing industries, it was within the powers and rights of the State to amend or alter the scheme in public interest. In the scheme itself it was mentioned clearly that it may be altered at any time. Exemption is not a right and it was open to the State Government to withdraw the same in public interest. Arguments have been heard. Record has also been perused. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondents are bound by the principle of promissory estoppel. The respondents had come out with the new incentive scheme with a view to encourage new industries in the State and the petitioner believing and relying on those promises, invested huge amount in establishing the industry and thereafter, it was not proper or even open to the State Government to amend the same and exclude the oil extraction and manufacturing industries by amendment dated May 7, 1990. He has placed reliance on Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills v. State of Uttar Pradesh [1979] 44 STC 42 (SC); AIR 1979 SC 621, Gujarat State Financial Corporation v. Lotus Hotels Pvt. Ltd. AIR 1983 SC 848, J. K. Industries Ltd. v. Union of India (1986) RLR 831, Pournami Oil Mills v. State of Kerala [1987] 65 STC 1 (SC); AIR 1987 SC 590, Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes v. Dharmendra Trading Company [1988] 70 STC 59 (SC); AIR 1988 SC 1247, Government of India v. Dhanalakshmi Paper and Board Mills AIR 1989 SC 665, Union of India v. J. K. Synthetics (1989) 2 RLR 662 and a recent decision of this Court in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2422 of 1990 (Parasrampuria Synthetics Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan) decided on May 29, 1991, reported in [1999] 116 STC 544. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further drawn my attention to the latest notification dated July 26, 1991 issued by the Government of Rajasthan issued in exercise of powers conferred by section 9 of the Act of 1956 read with sub-section (2b) of section 7 of the Act of 1954, making amendment in the notification dated July 6, 1989. I have carefully considered the submissions made at the Bar and have also gone through the various authorities. In view of the consistent trend of the Supreme Court as well as of this Court, there remains no doubt that the respondents are estopped from changing the incentive scheme to the detriment of the petitioner. On the assurance and promise of the non-petitioners, the petitioner established a new industry and invested huge amount. It is not necessary for me to repeat the arguments over again because I am in full agreement with the view expressed by my brother Judge, Israni, J. , in Parasrampuria Synthetics Ltd. [1999] 116 STC 544.
(3.) IN this view of the matter, this writ petition is allowed, the notification dated May 7, 1990 (annexure 3) is hereby quashed and it is held that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of Sales Tax INcentive Scheme for INdustries, 1987 and 1989. No order as to costs. Writ petition allowed. .;