DEVI MULTIPLEX &ANR. versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

Citation: [2015] 6 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 13-05-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ANIL R. DAVE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

(2015] 6 S.C.R. 1 
DEVI MULTIPLEX &ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 6478 of 2009) 
MAY 13, 2015 
[ANIL R. DAVE AND UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.] 
A 
B 
New Package Scheme of Incentives for Tourism 
Projects, 1995-2000 - Clause 10 - Scheme by the State c 
Government, inviting investments in tourism units, promising 
incentives, reliefs and concessions - Appellants started 
construction of multiplex in accordance with the Scheme and 
the Notification and applied for Temporary Registration 
Certification - However, progress of appellant's project D 
hampered as a result of major earth quake in State and large 
scale communal riots -Appellant sought extension of time -
State Level Committee granted extension -Appellant again 
sought extension of time which was 1ejected - Thereafter, 
High Court held that the operative period of the Scheme E 
came to an end on 30.11.2000 by which time appellants had 
not commenced commercial operation, thus, appellants not 
entitled to any benefits or incentives under the Scheme - It 
found that the time for completing the project and 
commencing the commercial operation would stand extended F 
as a result of GR. dt.28.06.2000 only upto 31.07.2002 and 
upto 30.11.2002 and appellant did not commence the 
commercial operations even within such extended time 
period - On appeal, held: Appellants entitled to have full G 
benefit and advantage of Clause 10 and the curtailment of 
the period and opportunity available under said Clause 10 
by subsequent G.R. dt. 28.06.2000 was bad and ineffective 
- State Government was estopped from going back on the 
promise so made in the Scheme - Order of High Court that H 
1 
2 
SUPREME GOURT REPORTS 
(2015) 6 S.C.R. 
A the operative period of the Scheme came to an end on 
30. 11. 2000 and that there could be no further extension of 
time limit, set aside - State Level Committee to assess 
whether appellants could justifiably have claimed extension 
under clause 10 of the Scheme - Gujarat Entertainment Tax 
B Act, 1977- s. 29. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The Scheme definitely promised 
c incentives in the form of Tax holiday of 5-10 years in 
respect of exemptions from Sales Tax, Turnover Tax, 
Electricity Duty, Luxury Tax and Entertainment Tax upto 
100 % of capital investment if a new unit was registered 
after 1.8.1995 and appropriate investment in fixed capital 
o assets was made. It also promised an initial period of 
two years for going operational in the first instance, 
extendable by further period of two years subject to 
satisfactory progress to be found by the State Level 
Committee. Even thereafter, the Unit could still approach 
E the State Government for further extension. This was 
part of the core of the Scheme, which invited investment 
in tourism units promising tax holiday as stated above. 
Based on such representation, various units including 
that of the appellants having come forward and altered 
F their position, the State Government would certainly be 
bound by the principles of Promissory Estoppel. The 
State Government was thus, estopped from going back 
on the promise so made in the Scheme and could not 
have curtailed the period and the opportunity specifically 
G made available within which the project could be 
completed so as to avail the benefits under the Scheme. 
There is nothing on the basis of which it could be said 
that it would be inequitable to hold the State Government 
H to its promise. Out of 108 TRCs issued, the burden that 
DEVI MULTIPLEX &ANR. v. STATE OF GUJARAT & 
3 
ORS. 
the Government was well aware and thought that it could A 
comfortably bear, only 19 or 20 units have been 
established and are functional. The impact of incentives 
so offered under the Scheme and the consequential 
burden must have been weighed carefully when such 
promise was made and the Scheme was formed. [Para B 
19) [25-F-H; 26-A-E] 
1.2 The Scheme as framed on 20.12.1995 formed 
the basis of a statutory notification under Section 29 of 
Act 16of1977 and as such the core components of the C 
Scheme had acquired a statutory status. By virtue of 
Section 29, the notification dated 14.2.1997 was required 
to-be laid for not less than 30 days before the State 
Legislature. If the State Government was desirous of 
amending, varying or rescinding said notification dated D 
14.2.1997, the subsequent G.R. dated 28.06.2000 ought 
to have been translated in a statutory notification under 
Section 29 of the Act. In t

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.