12 August 2009
Supreme Court
Download

BELLARY STEELS & ALLOYS LTD. Vs DEPUTY COMMNR., COMMERCIAL TAXES .

Case number: C.A. No.-004303-004303 / 2006
Diary number: 24660 / 2004
Advocates: PRAVEEN KUMAR Vs


1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.4303 OF 2006

Bellary Steels & Alloys Ltd. ...Appellant(s)

Versus

Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (Assessments) &  Ors.

               ...Responden t(s)

W I T H

CIVIL APPEALS NOS.4306, 4305, 4304, 4308, 4307, 5660 & 5291 OF 2006

O R D E R

Heard both sides at length.

Appellant(s) herein agree to withdraw the original Writ Petitions filed  

by  them  in  the  Karnataka  High  Court,  unconditionally.   In  view  of  such  

withdrawal,  the  impugned  judgment  of  the  Division  Bench  as  well  as  the  

judgment of the learned Single Judge will not survive.  It is made clear that such  

withdrawal of the original Writ Petitions will not preclude the Trade from moving  

the  Government  with  a  proper  representation  explaining  the  fall-out  of  the  

impugned Notification dated 11th October, 1995 and loss of benefit on account of  

the impugned notification.

Today,  when  investments  in  the  States  is  the  need  of  the  hour,  the  

Government needs to consider such representations  of   the  Trade   keeping  in  

mind  the

....2/-

2

CA 4303/06 etc..contd..

-2-

Industrial  Policy,  dated 12th July,  1993 as  well   as  the  Notification  dated  28th  

October, 1993 as also the subsequent Industrial Policy vide Government Order  

dated 15th March, 1996 which, inter alia, contains an option to the assessee to opt  

for the old versus new policy.   

The representation, if any, will be made by the Trade within a period of  

six weeks.

Before concluding, we may state that we have allowed the appellant(s)  

to withdraw the original Writ Petition as the said proceedings came to be filed  

against show cause notice.  We have repeatedly held that in the absence of factual  

foundation, it would be impossible to decide matters of this kind.  When doctrine  

of promissory estoppel is invoked, the doctrine needs to be based on factual data  

which has not been pleaded.  The High Court should not have interfered in the  

matter.  In these cases, the writ petition was filed without reply to even the show  

cause notice.  In the circumstances, we could have dismissed these Civil Appeals  

only on the ground of failure to exhaust statutory remedy, but for the fact that  

huge investments involving the large number of industries is in issue.

Subject  to  above,  Civil Appeals are dismissed as

...3/-

CA 4303/06 etc..contd..

3

-3-

withdrawn with no order as to costs.

                                       ..................J.               (S.H. KAPADIA)

                                       ..................J.               (AFTAB ALAM) New Delhi, August 12, 2009.