Union of India and Others Vs. Godhawani Brothers and Another
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 597 of 1997
Petitioner: Union of India and Others
Respondent: Godhawani Brothers and Another
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 597 of 1997
Judges: J.S. VERMA & S.P. KURDUKAR, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jan 31, 1997
Head Note:
ADMINISTRATIVE LAWS
Promissory Estoppel – Applicability to Government actions – Exemption from duty or tax granted for a specified period – Subsequent Notification issued by Government superseding the exemption – Whether Government estopped from doing so. Held No as held in Kasinka Trading v. Union of India JT 1994 (7) SC 362.
Promissory Estoppel – Applicability to Government actions – Exemption from duty or tax granted for a specified period – Subsequent Notification issued by Government superseding the exemption – Whether Government estopped from doing so. Held No as held in Kasinka Trading v. Union of India JT 1994 (7) SC 362.
Cases Reffered:
1. Kasinka Trading v. Union of India JT 1994 (7) SC 362
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal by special leave is against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court dated 14-8-1987 in Appeal No. 687 of 1984 by which the appeal of the assessee (respondent herein) was allowed setting aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge which had dismissed the assessee’s writ petition.
3. The only question for decision before the High Court was the availability of the plea of promissory estoppel to a party against issue of a notification in exercise of the statutory powers superseding the exemption from duty or tax granted earlier for a specified period. The learned Single Judge held against the assessee but the Division Bench of the High Court decided in the assessee’s favour.
4. The point is now settled by the decision of this Court in Kasinka Trading v. Union of India JT 1994 (7) SC 362 wherein such a plea of the assessee was rejected. This appeal has, therefore, to be allowed.
5. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court is set aside resulting in restoration of the judgment of the Single Bench by which the writ petition was dismissed.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal by special leave is against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court dated 14-8-1987 in Appeal No. 687 of 1984 by which the appeal of the assessee (respondent herein) was allowed setting aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge which had dismissed the assessee’s writ petition.
3. The only question for decision before the High Court was the availability of the plea of promissory estoppel to a party against issue of a notification in exercise of the statutory powers superseding the exemption from duty or tax granted earlier for a specified period. The learned Single Judge held against the assessee but the Division Bench of the High Court decided in the assessee’s favour.
4. The point is now settled by the decision of this Court in Kasinka Trading v. Union of India JT 1994 (7) SC 362 wherein such a plea of the assessee was rejected. This appeal has, therefore, to be allowed.
5. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court is set aside resulting in restoration of the judgment of the Single Bench by which the writ petition was dismissed.
