KASINKA TRADING AND ANR. ETC. ETC> versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 448 · Decided: 18-10-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.N. VENKATACHALIAH · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
KASINKA TRADING AND ANR. ETC. ETC. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 
OCTOBER 18, 1994 
B 
!M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, CJ AND DR. A.S. ANAND, J.] 
Customs Act, 19.62 : 
Section 25(1}-Notification exempting certain goods from duty-Sub-
C sequent notification withdrawing the exemption-Validity of the withdrawal 
notification-Applicability of the doctrine of Promissory Estoppel. 
D 
E 
Administrative Law : 
Doctrine of Promissory Estoppef-Meaning and applicability of 
In the first batch of appeals the respondents issued a notification 
dated 15.3.1979 exempting PVC resins from basic import dnty. The 
notification stated that it would be effective upto and inclusive of31.3.1981. 
However, before the expiry oi the term another notification dated 
16.10.1980 was issned withdrawing the exemption granted earlier. 
In the second batch of appeals the respondent issned notifications 
dated 18.4.1980 exempting aluminium wire rods and aluminium ingots 
from the whole of customs duty as well as additional duty Ieviable, as also 
auxiliary duty. By notification dated 29.8.1980, the earlier notification was 
F 
rescinded. Again on 9.9.80, a notification was issued exempting the 
aluminium wire rods and ingots. During the period of ten days i.e. from 
29.8.80 to 9-9-80, importers were required to pay both the customs duty 
as well as the auxiliary duty, while imports of goods which arrived before 
29.8.80 and after 9.9.80 were not subject to the levy. 
G 
Appeilants filed writ Petitions before the High Court ch.illenging the 
notification by which the exemption was withdrawn, contending that the 
Central Government must be held bound by the representation it had 
made in the exemption notification and it was estopped from going back 
on its promise. The High Court dismissed the writ petitions. Hence these 
H appeals. 
448 
, 
KASINKA TRDG. v. U.O.I. 
449 
Dismissing the appeals, this Court 
HELD : 1.1 It has been settled by this Court that the doctrine of 
promissory estoppel is applicable against the Government also particular-
A 
ly where it is necessary.to prevent fraud or manifest injustice. The doctrine, 
however, cannot be pressed into aid to compel the Government or the 
public authority to carry out a representation or promise which is contrary B 
to law or which is outside the authority or power of the officer of the 
Government or of the public authority to make. There is preponderance 
of judicial opinion that to invoke the do~trine of promissory estoppel, 
clear, sound and positive foundation must be laid in the petition itself by 
the party invoking the doctrine and that bald expressions, without any C 
supporting material, to the effect that the doctrine is attracted because the 
party invoking the doctrine has altered its position relying on the as-
surance of the Government would not be sufficient to press into aid the 
doctrine. (457-G-H, 458-A-B] 
1.2. The doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be invoked in the D 
abstract and the courts are bound to consider all aspects including the 
results sought to be achieved and the public good at large while consider-
ing the applicability of the doctrine, the courts have to do equity and 
therefore the fundamental principle of equity must for ever be present to 
the mind of the court while considering the applicability of the doctrine. E 
The doctrine must yield when the equity so demands, if it can be shown 
having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case that it would be 
inequitable to hold the Government or the public authority to its promise. 
(458-B-C] 
Union of India v. Anglo Afgan Agencies Pvt. Ltd., (1968] 2 SCR 366; F 
Century Spi11ning and Mfg. Co. Ltd. and Anr., v. The Ulhasnagar Municipal 
Council andAnr., [1970]3 SCR 854; Mis Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. 
(P) Ltd. v. f:tate of UP and Ors., (1979] 2 SCR 641; lit Ram Shive Kumar 
and Ors. etc. v. State of Haryana andAnr., (1980] 3 SCR 689; Union of India 
v. Godfrey Philips India Ltd., [1985] 4 SCC 369; Indian Express Newspapers G 
(Born) Pvt. L_td. and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., (1985] 1 SCC 641; 
Poumami Oil Mills and Ors. v. State of Kera/a and Anr., (1986] Supp. SCC 
728; ~I Oil Industries and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ant., (1987]_1 
SCR 185;Asstt. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and Ors. v. Dharmendra 
Trading Co. and Ors., (1988] 3 SCC 570; Amrit Banaspati C/J. Ltd. and 
Anr. v. State of Punjab and Anr., [1992] 2 SCC 411; Union of India and Ors. H 
450 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 4

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