{"id":43729,"date":"1986-11-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1986-11-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bakul-oil-industries-anr-vs-state-of-gujarat-anr-on-11-november-1986"},"modified":"2017-01-30T15:32:44","modified_gmt":"2017-01-30T10:02:44","slug":"bakul-oil-industries-anr-vs-state-of-gujarat-anr-on-11-november-1986","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bakul-oil-industries-anr-vs-state-of-gujarat-anr-on-11-november-1986","title":{"rendered":"Bakul Oil Industries & Anr vs State Of Gujarat & Anr on 11 November, 1986"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Bakul Oil Industries & Anr vs State Of Gujarat & Anr on 11 November, 1986<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1987 AIR 142, \t\t 1987 SCR (1) 185<\/div>\n
Author: S Natrajan<\/div>\n
Bench: Natrajan, S. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nBAKUL OIL INDUSTRIES & ANR.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT11\/11\/1986\n\nBENCH:\nNATRAJAN, S. (J)\nBENCH:\nNATRAJAN, S. (J)\nTHAKKAR, M.P. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1987 AIR  142\t\t  1987 SCR  (1) 185\n 1987 SCC  (1)\t31\t  JT 1986   801\n 1986 SCALE  (2)750\n CITATOR INFO :\n F\t    1991 SC1456\t (13)\n\n\nACT:\n    Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969: ss. 15 & 49(2)--Tax  exemp-\ntion  for  a  period o f five years  from  commissioning  of\nindustry--Withdrawal  Effect  and  validity  of\t  Government\nnotification.\n    Promissory\testoppel--Doctrine  of--Grant  of  exemption\nfrom  sales  tax to new\t industry--  Withdrawal\t of--Whether\npermissible.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n    By\ta notification dated April 29, 1970 issued under  s.\n49(2)  of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act. 1969 the State  Govern-\nment exempted wholly or partly from payment of sales tax  or\npurchase  tax  certain specified classes of sales  and\tpur-\nchases\tdescribed in entries 1 to 52 in the  Schedule.\tThis\nnotification  was  subsequently\t amended  by  another  dated\nNovember 11, 1970 by adding a new entry No. 53 in the Sched-\nule  exempting a manufacturer, who established a new  indus-\ntry,  from the whole of (a) purchase tax under s. 15 of\t the\nAct,  (b) sales tax leviable under the Act, for a period  of\nfive  years from the date of commissioning the industry.  By\nanother notification issued on July 17, 1971 the  Government\namended the explanation contained in the second notification\nthereby taking out certain industries, including oil  mills,\nout of the purview of the Act.\n    The\t appellants' oil mill set up in a  conforming  area,\nwas  commissioned  on May 14, 1970.  Their  application\t for\neligibility certificate for claiming exemption from  payment\nof  sales  tax as per the second  notification\thaving\tbeen\nrejected  by the Industries Commissioner, they filed a\tspe-\ncial  civil application under Art. 226 of  the\tConstitution\nfor an order directing the Industries Commissioner to  grant\nthem eligibility certificate. It was contended for them that\nthe notification dated July 17, 1971 would have no effect on\nthe  eligibility  already acquired by them in terms  of\t the\nsecond notification.\n    The High Court took the view that the notification dated\nJuly  17,  1971 was only prospective in\t operation  and\t not\nretrospective, that it did not affect the exemption  enjoyed\nby the petitioners under the second notification in  respect\nof  the purchases and sales effected prior-to July 17,\t1971\nand  that  the\tsecond notification  created  only  existing\nrights and not vested rights and such existing rights  could\nhe taken away by\n 186\nthe  subsequent notification. It, therefore, held  that\t the\nappellants  were entitled to exemption from payment  of\t tax\nonly  for the period anterior to July 17, 1971, and for\t the\nperiod thereafter they had no rights to claim exemption.\n    In\tthis appeal by certificate under Art.  133(1)(c)  of\nthe Constitution it was contended for the appellants that by\nvirtue\tof the first and the second notifications  they\t had\nacquired  a  vested right to a tax holiday for a  period  of\nfive  years  and the Government acting in  exercise  of\t the\ndelegated  powers  did not have competence  to\tnullify\t the\nexemption by giving retrospective effect to its notification\ndated  July I7, 1971, and that in any event they were  enti-\ntled  to the benefit of tax exemption for a period  of\tfive\nyears  on the ground of promissory estoppel and the  Govern-\nment was obligated to give tax exemption for the full period\nof the claim.\nDismissing the appeal, the Court,\n    HELD:  1. The appellants are entitled to the benefit  of\ntax exemption. only for the limited period during which\t the\nconcession was offered by the Government. [194F]\n    2. Since the first notification dated April 29. 1970 did\nnot  stipulate as to how long the exemption from  sales\t tax\nwould remain in operation the concession granted  thereunder\nwas to have operative force only till such time that it\t was\nallowed\t to  remain in force before being withdrawn  by\t the\nsubsequent  notification.  The\tsecond\tnotification   dated\nNovember  11, 1970 which set out that the exemption  granted\nwould be operative for a period of five years from the\tdate\nof  commissioning  of the industry at any  time\t during\t the\nperiod from April 1, 1970 to March 31, 1975, was prospective\nin  operation. It would, therefore, apply only to those\t new\nindustries  which were commissioned subsequent\tto  issuance\nthereof.  As the appellants' unit was  commissioned  several\nmonths\tbefore\tthe second notification the same  cannot  be\ninvoked by them for claiming benefit of tax exemption for  a\nperiod of five years from the date of commissioning of their\nmill. [191E-192A]\n    3.\tThe State Government was under no obligation in\t any\nmanner known to law to grant exemption from sales tax.\tWhat\nwas granted under the first notification was only by way  of\nconcession for encouraging entrepreneurs to start industries\nin  rural and undeveloped areas. Such a concession could  be\nwithdrawn or revoked at any time and no time limit could  be\ninsisted before doing so. The State Government was,\n187\ntherefore,  fully within its powers to revoke the  exemption\nby  means of a subsequent notification. [192C,\t193A,  192B,\n192D]\n    4. 1 The Government could withdraw an exemption  granted\nby it earlier only if such withdrawal could be made  without\noffending  the rule of promissory estoppel and\twithout\t de-\npriving\t an  industry entitled to claim\t exemption.  If\t the\nGovernment grants exemption to a new industry and if on\t the\nbasis of the representation made by the Government an indus-\ntry  is established in order to avail the benefit of  exemp-\ntion  then the new industry can legitimately raise a  griev-\nance  that  the exemption could not be withdrawn  except  by\nmeans of legislation having regard to the fact that  promis-\nsory estoppel cannot be claimed against a statute. [193B-D]\n    4.2 In order to claim the benefit of promissory estoppel\nit was necessary to establish: (i) that a representation was\nmade to grant the exemption for a particular period to a new\nindustry established in view of the representation held\t out\nby the State Government, and (ii) that the new industry\t was\nestablished acting upon the representation made by the State\nGovernment.  In\t the instant case, however,  the  appellants\nhave failed to prove that but for the concession offered  in\nthe, first notification they would not have established\t the\nindustry  in  question and that the entire venture  was\t at-\ntributable only to the inducement offered by the Government.\nThat  notification was made on April 29, 1970 while the\t oil\nmill  constructed by the appellants came to be\tcommissioned\non  May\t 17. 1970 itself. The issuance of  the\tnotification\ngranting tax exemption only constituted a fortuitous circum-\nstance in appellants' case and it could not be said that the\ncommissioning of their industry was directly the outcome  of\nthe   Government's  notification  granting  tax\t  exemption.\n[193FG,H, 194AB,D]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISIDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2061
\nof 1972
\n    From  the  Judgment and Order dated 8\/9.3. 1972  of\t the
\nGujarat High Court in Spl. Civil Appl. No. 562 of 1971.
\n    S.T. Desai. H.S. Parihar. M.N. Tandan and Vipin  Chandra
\nfor the Appellants.\n<\/p>\n
G.A. Shah, Mrs. H. Wahi and M.N. Shroff for the Respondents.
\nThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n188<\/span>
\n    NATARAJAN, J. In this appeal by certificate under  Arti-
\ncle  133(1)(c)\tof the Constitution two questions  fail\t for
\nconsideration viz;\n<\/p>\n
\t\t   (1) Whether the appellants had acquired a
\n\t      vested  right  of exemption  from\t payment  of
\n\t      sales  tax  under the Gujarat Sales  Tax\tAct,
\n\t      1969  (for short the ‘Act’) for a period of  5
\n\t      years from the date of commissioning of  their
\n\t      oil  mill\t in respect of purchases  and  sales
\n\t      relating\tto the business of their  oil  mill?
\n\t      and
\n\t\t   (2)\twhether in any event the  appellants
\n\t      are  entitled  to claim tax  exemption  for  a
\n\t      period of 5 years under cover of the  doctrine
\n\t      of Promissory Estoppel?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    In\torder  to achieve dispersal of industries  to  rural
\nareas  and  to provide fillip to accelerate  development  of
\nindustries the Government of Gujarat (‘Government’ in short)
\nissued a Notification on 29.4.1970 in exercise of its pOwers
\nunder  Section 49(2) of the Act exempting wholly  or  partly
\nfrom  payment of sales tax or purchase tax, as the case\t may
\nbe,  certain  specified classes of sales and  purchases\t de-
\nscribed in the entries at Serial Nos. 1 to 52 in the  Sched-
\nule.  The  said\t Notification was  subsequently\t amended  by
\nanother Notification dated 11.11.1970 and a new Entry, Entry
\nNo. 53, was added in the Schedule below Entry at Serial\t No.\n<\/p>\n
52.  The new entry consisted of two parts, one\tpart  giving
\nexemption  from purchase tax and the other, from sales\ttax.
\nThe  Notification  provided that subject to  the  conditions
\nspecified  therein  a  manufacturer who\t establishes  a\t new
\nindustry would be given exemption of “the whole of  purchase
\ntax under Section 15 of the Act” in respect of “purchase  of
\nraw  materials, processing materials, machinery\t or  packing
\nmaterials from a person who is not a registered dealer”.  It
\nwas  similarly provided that subject to the conditions\tpre-
\nscribed in the Notification a manufacturer who establishes a
\nnew industry would be given exemption of the whole of  sales
\ntax  leviable  under  the Act in respect of  “sales  of\t raw
\nmaterials, processing materials by a registered dealer”. One
\nof  the conditions impOsed was that the new industry  should
\nhave been commissioned on or after 1.4.1970 in areas  beyond
\n24  kilometers\tfrom the Municipal limits of the  cities  of
\nAhmedabad  and Baroda and 16 kilometers from  the  Municipal
\nlimits of Surat, Bhavnagar, Rajkot and Jamnagar and that the
\nmanufacturer  should obtain an eligibility certificate\tfrom
\nthe  Industries Commissioner, Gujarat State  certifying\t the
\nfulfilment  of these conditions. The  Notification  provided
\nthat  a\t certified manufacturer “shall be  entitled  to\t the
\nexemption  for a period of five years from the date of\tcom-
\nmissioning of
\n189<\/span>
\nthe industry as certified by the Industries Commissioner  in
\nthe  eligibility certificate”. There was an  Explanation  in
\nthe Notification to define what a “new industry.” means\t and
\nit was in the following terms:–\n<\/p>\n
\t      “For  the purpose of items (1) and  (2)  above
\n\t      ‘new industry’ means and includes an  industry
\n\t      which has been commissioned at any time during
\n\t      the period from 1st April, 1970 to 31st March,
\n\t      1975(both\t days  inclusive);  but\t shall\t not
\n\t      include  such  industrial\t undertaking  estab-
\n\t      lished by transferring or shifting or  disman-
\n\t      tling an existing industrial unit”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    The appellants had set up a plant for decorticating\t and
\ncrushing  cotton and groundnut seeds for manufacture of\t oil
\nat  a place called Kadi beyond 24 kilometers from  Ahmedabad
\nand commissioned the plant on May 17, 1970. On the  strength
\nof  the\t location of the oil mill at a place  more  than  24
\nkilometers  from the Municipal limits of Ahmedabad  and\t the
\ncommissioning  of the plant on May 17, 1970, the  appellants
\napplied\t to the Industries Commissioner for an\t“eligibility
\ncertificate”  for claiming exemption from payment  of  sales
\ntax  as\t per the Notification dated November 11,  1970.\t The
\nIndustries  Commissioner  rejected  the\t application  giving
\ncertain\t reasons  therefor. The appellants  thereupon  filed
\nSpecial Civil Application No. 562 of 1971 under Article\t 226
\nof  the Constitution for an order directing  the  Industries
\nCommissioner  to  grant them an eligibility  certificate  in
\nterms of the Notification.\n<\/p>\n
    During  the pendency of the petition, the State  Govern-
\nment issued another Notification dated July 17, 1971  amend-
\ning  the  Explanation contained in  the\t Notification  dated
\nNovember  11, 1970. The amendment provided inter  alia\tthat
\n“new  industry”\t shall not include “any of  the\t industries,
\nwhether\t so  commissioned  or not, mentioned  in  the  table
\nappended  hereto”. The table set out some 14  industries  of
\nwhich  the twelfth was “decorticating, expelling,  crushing,
\nroasting,  parching, frying of oilseeds and coloring,  deco-
\nlouring\t and  scenting\tof oil”. It would  appear  that\t the
\neffect\tof the exemption was reviewed by the Government\t and
\non  such reconsideration “the Government was satisfied\tthat
\ncertain industries and the oil industries in particular were
\nsufficiently  dispersed in rural areas, in respect of  which
\nthe  existing capacity of the existing industries  was\talso
\nmore than adequate” and “the Government reached the  conclu-
\nsion  that certain industries required to be  excluded\tfrom
\nthe purview of the Act”. As the oil mill commissioned by the
\nappellants fell within the denotified industries the  appel-
\nlants  obtained\t the leave of the court\t and  amended  their
\npeti-\n<\/p>\n
190<\/span><\/p>\n
tion  suitably\tin order to contend  that  the\tNotification
\ndated July 17, 1971 would have no effect on the\t eligibility
\nalready acquired by them to claim exemption from payment  of
\nsales  tax in the fight of the provisions contained  in\t the
\nsecond Notification dated November 11, 1970.
\n    The\t appellants’  petition and a connected\tmatter\tviz.
\nSpecial Civil Application No. 1307 of 1971 filed by a  third
\nparty came to be considered together by a Division Bench  of
\nthe  Gujarat  High Court. The High Court,  by  its  judgment
\ndated 8-9\/3\/72, held that the Notification dated 17.7.71 was
\nonly prospective in operation and not retrospective, that it
\ndid  not  affect the exemption enjoyed\tby  the\t petitioners
\nunder  the Notification dated 11.11.1970 in respect of\tpur-
\nchases\tand  sales  effected prior to  17.7.1971,  that\t the
\nNotification  dated 11.11.1970 created only existing  fights
\nand  not  vested rights and such existing  rights  could  be
\ntaken  away  by the Notification dated 17.7.1971.  The\tHigh
\nCourt, therefore, ruled that the appellants were entitled to
\nexemption  from payment of tax only for the period  anterior
\nto 17.7.1971 and for the period thereafter they had no right
\nto  claim  exemption. Being aggrieved by  the  non-grant  of
\nrelief\tof tax exemption for the full period of 5 years\t the
\nappellants  have  preferred this appeal\t after\tobtaining  a
\ncertificate under Article 133(1)(c) of the Constitution.
\n    Mr. Desai, learned counsel for the appellants formulated
\nhis  arguments under three heads to contend before  us\tthat
\nthe  High Court ought to have granted relief to\t the  appel-
\nlants  to the full extent of their claim and it\t should\t not
\nhave  restricted  the relief of tax exemption only  for\t the
\nperiod 17.5.1970 to 17.7.1971. The propositions put  forward
\nwere in the following terms:–\n<\/p>\n
\t\t   1.  By virtue of the Notifications  dated
\n\t      29.4.70  and 11.11.70 the appellants  had\t ac-
\n\t      quired  a vested right to a tax holiday for  a
\n\t      period  of 5 years and the Government,  acting
\n\t      in  exercise of its delegated powers  did\t not
\n\t      have  competence to nullify the  exemption  by
\n\t      giving  retrospective effect to its  Notifica-
\n\t      tion dated 17.7.71.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t   2.  The High Court was not  justified  in
\n\t      drawing  a  fine\tdistinction  between  vested
\n\t      rights  and existing rights and  holding\tthat
\n\t      the Notifications created only existing rights
\n\t      and  such rights are subject to defeasance  by
\n\t      means of subsequent Notifications.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      3. In any event the appellants are entitled to
\n\t      the benefit of
\n\t      191<\/span>
\n\t      tax  exemption for a period of five  years  on
\n\t      the  ground  of Promissory  Estoppel  and\t the
\n\t      Government is obligated to give tax  exemption
\n\t      for the full period of claim.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    Elaborating the first two ‘contentions Mr. Desai  argued
\nthat  the  Government  by virtue of the\t first\tand  second.
\nNotifications  had irretrievably committed itself  to  grant
\nexemption from payment of sales tax and purchase tax to\t the
\nnotified industries commissioned at any time after  1.4.1970
\nand  before 31.3.1975 at places beyond the  prescribed\tdis-
\ntances from the Municipal limits of the cities named in\t the
\nNotification.  Inasmuch\t as the appellants  had\t established
\ntheir oil mill at a place more than 24 kilometers away\tfrom
\nthe Municipal limits of Ahmedabad City and had\tcommissioned
\nthe plant on 17.5.1970 Mr. Desai argued that the  appellants
\nhad  acquired  a vested right of exemption and it  was\tnot,
\ntherefore,  open to the Government under law to nullify\t the
\nexemption  by  issuing the Notification dated  17.7.1971  in
\nexercise of its delegated powers.\n<\/p>\n
    The merit of these contentions has to be determined with
\nreference  to the date of commissioning of  the\t appellants’
\noil mill as well as the dates of the Notifications and their
\ncontents.  Admittedly, the appellants’ oil mill was  commis-
\nsioned on 17.5. 1970 and, therefore, it follows that the oil
\nmill was commissioned after the first Notification but\tlong
\nbefore the second Notification. It is indisputable that\t the
\nfirst Notification, though it provided for exemption of\t tax
\nunder  the Act, did not provide any period of exemption.  In
\nother  words, the Notification did not stipulate as  to\t how
\nlong  the exemption from sales tax’ would remain  in  opera-
\ntion. The position emerging therefrom is that the  exemption
\ngranted\t under the Notification was to have operative  force
\nonly till such time that the exemption was allowed to remain
\nbefore\tbeing  withdrawn by a subsequent  Notification.\t The
\nsecond\tNotification  no doubt set out\tthat  the  exemption
\ngranted\t would be for a period of 5 years from the  date  of
\nthe  commissioning  of the industry at any time\t during\t the
\nperiod\tfrom 1st April, 1970 to 31st March, 1975 (both\tdays
\ninclusive).  But  this provision cannot be  invoked  by\t the
\nappellants  for\t claiming the benefit of tax  exemption\t for
\nfive  years because the second Notification was\t prospective
\nin  operation  as has been rightly pointed out by  the\tHigh
\nCourt  in  its judgment. Since the second  Notification\t was
\nprospective  in\t operation the period of 5  years  mentioned
\ntherein would apply only to those new industries which. were
\ncommissioned  subsequent to the issuance of  that  Notifica-
\ntion.  As admittedly, the appellants’ unit was\tcommissioned
\nseveral months before the second Notification was made,\t the
\nsecond Notification cannot
\n192<\/span>
\nafford a basis to the appellants to raise a claim for exemp-
\ntion  for a period of 5 years from the date of\tthe  commis-
\nsioning of their plant.\n<\/p>\n
    Viewed from another perspective, it may be noticed\tthat
\nthe State Government was under no obligation to grant exemp-
\ntion  from sales tax. The appellants could  not,  therefore,
\nhave insisted on the State Government granting exemption  to
\nthem from payment of sales tax. What consequently follows is
\nthat the exemption granted by the Government was only by way
\nof  concession. Once this position emerges it  goes  without
\nsaying that a concession can be withdrawn at any time and no
\ntime  limit  can be insisted upon before the  concession  is
\nwithdrawn.  The\t Notifications\tof  the\t Government  clearly
\nmanifest  that the State Government had earlier granted\t the
\nexemption  only\t by way of concession  and  subsequently  by
\nmeans  of the revised Notification issued on 17.7.1971,\t the
\nconcession  had been withdrawn. As the State Government\t was
\nunder  no obligation, in any manner known to law.  to  grant
\nexemption  it  was  fully within its powers  to\t revoke\t the
\nexemption by means of a subsequent Notification. This is  an
\nadditional factor militating against the contentions of\t the
\nappellants.\n<\/p>\n
    Much  of the arguments of the appellants’  counsel\tpro-
\nceeded on the assumption that the appellants had acquired  a
\nvested right under the Notification issued by the Government
\non 11.11. 1970 to claim exemption from payment of sales\t tax
\nfor  a period of five years and consequently the  Government
\nhad no right to take away the appellants’ vested right.\t The
\ncontentions  are untenable because of the fallacy  contained
\nin  them viz. the wrong assumption that the  appellants\t had
\nacquired a vested fight. The High Court has rightly repelled
\nthe plea that the appellants had acquired a vested right and
\nwere, therefore, entitled to claim exemption from payment of
\ntax  for a period of five years notwithstanding the  revoca-
\ntion   of  the\texemption  under  the\tNotification   dated
\n17.7.1971.  The High Court has further taken the  view\tthat
\nthe  earlier  Notifications granting exemption of  tax\tonly
\ncreated existing rights and such existing fights can  always
\nbe withdrawn by means of a revocation Notification and\tthat
\nis exactly what has happened in this case.\n<\/p>\n
    For\t the  purposes\tof this appeal we do  not  think  it
\nnecessary to go into the question whether the earlier  Noti-
\nfication  had  created existing rights and whether  the\t im-
\npugned\tNotification had the effect of only taking away\t the
\nexisting  rights.  We are taking this view because  we\thave
\nalready\t pointed out that the State Government was under  no
\nobligation  to grant exemption and that the granting of\t tax
\nexemption
\n193<\/span>
\nwas  only  by  way of a concession. Having  regard  to\tthis
\nconclusion  there  is no need for any probe to\tbe  made  to
\ndetermine whether the Notification had created vested rights
\nor  only existing rights. The exemption granted by the\tGov-
\nernment,  as already stated, was only by way  of  concession
\nfor  encouraging entrepreneurs to start industries in  rural
\nand undeveloped areas and as such it was always open to\t the
\nState  Government to withdraw or revoke the  concession.  We
\nmust,  however,\t observe  that the power  of  revocation  or
\nwithdrawal would be subject to one limitation viz. the power
\ncannot\tbe exercised in violation of the rule of  Promissory
\nEstoppel.  In  other words, the Government can\twithdraw  an
\nexemption granted by it earlier if such withdrawal could  be
\ndone  without offending the rule of Promissory Estoppel\t and
\ndepriving  an  industry\t entitled to  claim  exemption\tfrom
\npayment of tax under the said rule. If the Government grants
\nexemption  to  a  new industry and if on the  basis  of\t the
\nrepresentation made by the Government an industry is  estab-
\nlished\tin order to avail the benefit of exemption.  it\t may
\nthen  follow that the new industry can legitimately raise  a
\ngrievance  that the exemption could not be withdrawn  except
\nby  means  of  legislation having regard to  the  fact\tthat
\nPromissory Estoppel cannot be claimed against a statute.  In
\nthe  present case the appellants had not raised the plea  of
\nPromissory  Estoppel before the High Court. This  is  under-
\nstandable  because the principle of Promissory Estoppel\t had
\nnot  found crystalised acceptance by courts of law when\t the
\nSpecial Civil Application came to be heard by the High Court
\nin the year 1972. Be that as it may, we find that the appel-
\nlants  have  not made out any case  of\tPromissory  Estoppel
\neither on the basis of the averments made in their  petition
\nor  with reference to the facts which have emerged from\t the
\naffidavits filed in the case. In order to claim the  benefit
\nof Promissory Estoppel the appellants must establish:–\n<\/p>\n
\t\t    (i)\t that a representation was  made  to
\n\t      grant the exemption for a particular period to
\n\t      a\t new  industry established in  view  of\t the
\n\t      representation  held out by the State  Govern-
\n\t      ment; and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t    (ii) that the appellants had established
\n\t      the  new industry acting upon the\t representa-
\n\t      tion made by the State Government.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  facts in the present case do not go to  establish\tthat
\nthe  appellants\t had  put up the new  industry\tin  question
\nsubsequent  to and in pursuance of the promise held  out  by
\nNotification dated 29.4.1970 granting exemption. Putting  it
\ndifferently the appellants have not
\n194<\/span>
\nproved\tthat  but for the concession offered  in  the  first
\nNotification,  they would not have established the  industry
\nin  question  and that the entire venture  was\tattributable
\nonly  to the inducement offered by the Government. From\t the
\nfacts set out supra it may be seen that the first  Notifica-
\ntion was made on 29.4.1970 while the oil mill constructed by
\nthe appellants came to be commissioned on 17.5. 1970 itself.
\nIt is not the appellants’ case and indeed it can never be so
\ncontended  that they launched the project and commenced\t the
\nconstruction of the oil mill only after the Notification  of
\n29.4.1970  was\tmade and that the  entire  construction\t was
\ncompleted  in  about  two weeks’ time so as  to\t enable\t the
\nappellants  to commission the plant on 17.5. 1970.  What  is
\nenvisaged  under the Notification is that the  project\tmust
\nhave  been  undertaken and construction work  itself  should
\nhave been started in response to and acting on the Notifica-
\ntion.  It is not sufficient to rely on the commissioning  of
\nan industry after completion of construction work which\t had
\nbeen commenced long before the Notification was made by\t the
\nGovernment.  In respect of such an industry as .the  present
\none,  the issuance of a Notification granting tax  exemption
\nwould  only constitute a fortuitous circumstance and  by  no
\nstretch of imagination can it ever be said that the  commis-
\nsioning\t of  the industry was directly the  outcome  of\t the
\nGovernment’s  Notification granting tax exemption. The\tcon-
\ncession offered by the Government under the first  Notifica-
\ntion  dated  29.4.70 did not prescribe any  period  or\ttime
\nlimit,\tand hence the appellants cannot claim anything\tmore
\nthan  the  benefit of the Notification for such\t period\t the
\nexemption  was\tin force. Once the  Government\tdecided,  in
\nexercise of the powers vested in it, to revoke the  original
\nNotification,  the benefit of exemption from sales  tax\t en-
\njoyed by the appellants came to an automatic end. The period
\nof five years mentioned in the second Notification will have
\nno  reference to the appellants’ oil mill commissioned\tmuch
\nearlier\t because the Notification had only  prospective\t ef-
\nfect.  We  have, therefore, to affirm the view of  the\tHigh
\nCourt that the appellants will be entitled to the benefit of
\ntax  exemption only for the limited period during which\t the
\nconcession was offered by the Government.\n<\/p>\n
    We find no merit in the appeal and accordingly it stands
\ndismissed. No order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
P.S.S.\t\t\t\t\t       Appeal\tdis-\nmissed.\n195<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Bakul Oil Industries & Anr vs State Of Gujarat & Anr on 11 November, 1986 Equivalent citations: 1987 AIR 142, 1987 SCR (1) 185 Author: S Natrajan Bench: Natrajan, S. (J) PETITIONER: BAKUL OIL INDUSTRIES & ANR. Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT11\/11\/1986 BENCH: NATRAJAN, S. (J) […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-43729","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nBakul Oil Industries & Anr vs State Of Gujarat & Anr on 11 November, 1986 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bakul-oil-industries-anr-vs-state-of-gujarat-anr-on-11-november-1986\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bakul Oil Industries & Anr vs State Of Gujarat & Anr on 11 November, 1986 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bakul-oil-industries-anr-vs-state-of-gujarat-anr-on-11-november-1986\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1986-11-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-01-30T10:02:44+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bakul-oil-industries-anr-vs-state-of-gujarat-anr-on-11-november-1986#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bakul-oil-industries-anr-vs-state-of-gujarat-anr-on-11-november-1986\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Bakul Oil Industries & Anr vs State Of Gujarat & Anr on 11 November, 1986\",\"datePublished\":\"1986-11-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-30T10:02:44+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bakul-oil-industries-anr-vs-state-of-gujarat-anr-on-11-november-1986\"},\"wordCount\":2992,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bakul-oil-industries-anr-vs-state-of-gujarat-anr-on-11-november-1986#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bakul-oil-industries-anr-vs-state-of-gujarat-anr-on-11-november-1986\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bakul-oil-industries-anr-vs-state-of-gujarat-anr-on-11-november-1986\",\"name\":\"Bakul Oil Industries & Anr vs State Of Gujarat & Anr on 11 November, 1986 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1986-11-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-30T10:02:44+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bakul-oil-industries-anr-vs-state-of-gujarat-anr-on-11-november-1986#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bakul-oil-industries-anr-vs-state-of-gujarat-anr-on-11-november-1986\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bakul-oil-industries-anr-vs-state-of-gujarat-anr-on-11-november-1986#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bakul Oil Industries & Anr vs State Of Gujarat & Anr on 11 November, 1986\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Bakul Oil Industries & Anr vs State Of Gujarat & Anr on 11 November, 1986 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bakul-oil-industries-anr-vs-state-of-gujarat-anr-on-11-november-1986","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bakul Oil Industries & Anr vs State Of Gujarat & Anr on 11 November, 1986 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bakul-oil-industries-anr-vs-state-of-gujarat-anr-on-11-november-1986","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1986-11-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-01-30T10:02:44+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bakul-oil-industries-anr-vs-state-of-gujarat-anr-on-11-november-1986#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bakul-oil-industries-anr-vs-state-of-gujarat-anr-on-11-november-1986"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Bakul Oil Industries & Anr vs State Of Gujarat & Anr on 11 November, 1986","datePublished":"1986-11-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-30T10:02:44+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bakul-oil-industries-anr-vs-state-of-gujarat-anr-on-11-november-1986"},"wordCount":2992,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bakul-oil-industries-anr-vs-state-of-gujarat-anr-on-11-november-1986#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bakul-oil-industries-anr-vs-state-of-gujarat-anr-on-11-november-1986","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bakul-oil-industries-anr-vs-state-of-gujarat-anr-on-11-november-1986","name":"Bakul Oil Industries & Anr vs State Of Gujarat & Anr on 11 November, 1986 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1986-11-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-30T10:02:44+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bakul-oil-industries-anr-vs-state-of-gujarat-anr-on-11-november-1986#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bakul-oil-industries-anr-vs-state-of-gujarat-anr-on-11-november-1986"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bakul-oil-industries-anr-vs-state-of-gujarat-anr-on-11-november-1986#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bakul Oil Industries & Anr vs State Of Gujarat & Anr on 11 November, 1986"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/43729","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=43729"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/43729\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=43729"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=43729"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=43729"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}