Disclaimer

This website is only for informational purposes. Visitors are requested to note that the information is intended to be correct, complete, and up-to-date. Juris Corp does not warrant that the information contained on this website is accurate or complete, and disclaims any and all liability to any person for any loss or damage caused by errors or omissions, whether such errors or omissions result from negligence, accident or any other cause.

This website is not intended to be a source of advertising or solicitation. The reader must not consider the information contained herein to be an invitation for a lawyer-client relationship, must not rely on information provided herein and must seek independent advice. Transmission, receipt or use of any information on this website does not constitute or create a lawyer-client relationship. No recipients of content from this website should act or refrain from acting, based upon any or all of the contents of this website.

Furthermore, Juris Corp does not wish to represent anyone desiring representation based solely upon viewing this web site. Finally, the reader is warned that the use of e-mail for confidential or sensitive information is susceptible to inherent risks of lack of confidentiality associated with sending e-mail over the internet.

By clicking on the "I understand and agree" button below, the user acknowledges that:

  • This website is not a mode of advertisement, promotion, personal communication, or solicitation of any sort whatsoever and the user wishes to gain information about us for his/her own reasons;
  • Entering into this website does not establish a lawyer-client relationship.

We are not liable for any consequence of any action taken by the user relying on information provided under this website. In cases where the user has any legal issues, he/she must seek independent legal advice.

JC - Law firm | Mumbai | Delhi | Benglore

Article

13 Jul 2020

Applicability of Promissory Estoppel to Governmental Action

Applicability of Promissory Estoppel to Governmental Action – A Tale of Broken Promises?

July 13,2020
 
Shubhabrata Chakraborti (Partner, Juris Corp)            Madhura Kulkarni (Associate)

“A promise made must be a promise kept.” - Aristotle

Aristotle’s position on promises relied on the ideal, that promisors would choose to act in a virtuous fashion and honor their promises. The reality is much different.  It is not uncommon to see promises or representations being dishonoured, when they become inconvenient or circumstances change.

To ensure the fulfillment of promises, the Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel was evolved. The Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel is used to enforce promises that have been made and acted on by the other person, who alters his position due to the same.  Rooted in the principles of equity, Promissory Estoppel is part law and part equity. It is recognized under Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It is also used by the Courts to prevent persons from resiling on promises, assurances or actions which caused the other party to believe something to be true and act on such belief, in cases where there is no formal contract.

Promissory Estoppel against the Governmental action

The Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel has seen a great deal of evolution in India. Originally, the Courts had maintained that the doctrine would not be applicable against the government in the matter of the operation of any statute. However, the Supreme Court, for the very first time, in Union of India vs. Anglo-Afghan Agencies Ltd., applied the doctrine against the Government.

Since then, the Supreme Court has considered the applicability of the Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel in various situations. The Supreme Court judgment dated 22nd April 2020, in the matter of Union of India & Anr. Vs. Ms. V.V.F. Limited & Anr. is the latest judgment to consider the applicability of the Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel to government action.

Union of India & Anr. Vs. Ms. V.V.F. Limited & Anr.

  • Facts of the case:

After an earthquake in Kutch, the Government of India announced a scheme vide the Central Excise Exemption Notification No.39/2001-CE dated 31.07.2001 for incentivizing businesses to encourage setting up of new industries in the district of Kutch. The Notification granted exemption from excise duty to goods produced by new industrial units set up in Kutch prior to 31st July 2003 (subsequently extended to 31st December 2005) up to an amount equivalent to the duty paid in Cash/Personal Ledger Account (‘PLA’) on finished goods, for a period of 5 years from the date of commencement of commercial production. Attracted by the exemption provided, the Respondents set up new industrial units in Kutch District.

Subsequently, on 27th March 2008, vide Notification No.16/2008-CE, the Original Exemption Notification was amended, providing that the benefit of refund would be granted with reference to the value addition, which was notionally fixed @ 34% for the commodity manufactured.

  • Contentions of the Respondents:

The Respondents had relied on the original notification and set up new industrial units in the district of Kutch. Due to the amendment, their incentive by way of refund was reduced to 34% of the duty paid from the original incentive of the entire duty paid in cash. The Respondents contended that the amendment served to change the entire basis of the original exemption, midway into the promised period of 5 years. Therefore, they alleged that the notification No.16/2008-CE violated the Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel.

  • Contentions of the Union of India:

The Government contended that the fresh Notification had been issued because it had come to the attention of the Government that the Exemption Notification had prompted certain unscrupulous manufacturers to indulge in different type of tax evasion tactics. It submitted that the intention behind the Exemption Notification was to incentivize genuine manufacturers only to the extent of actual value addition made by them and that the impugned notification was only a modification to give effect to the real intention of the Government and not a withdrawal of the benefit. It was also submitted that by the very power using which it grants exemption, the Government is empowered to withdraw the same.

 

  • Findings:

The Supreme Court upheld the subsequent notifications and set aside the impugned orders that had been passed quashing and setting aside the amending notifications as being hit by the Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel. It held that the subsequent notifications were clarificatory in nature and were issued in public interest and in the interest of revenue. The notifications merely attempted to achieve the actual objective of the original notification and do not take away any vested rights and therefore cannot be said to be hit by the Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel. It also held that the same can be applied retrospectively and cannot be considered irrational or arbitrary.

Promissory Estoppel and Governmental action – A diluted doctrine

The above Judgment is the latest in a long line of decisions on the applicability of the Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel against the Government.Since the first application of the Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel to Governmental action in Anglo-afghan Agencies case, various decisions of the Courts have diluted the applicability of Promissory Estoppel against the Government. Indeed, this judgment underlines the uncertainty of the position when it comes to the application of the Promissory Estoppel against the Government.

While, the doctrine is certainly held to be applicable to Governmental action, the applicability is not absolute. Over the years, various Judgments have given clarity as regards to the circumstances where the doctrine would not apply. These are –

i. Against a statute

ii. In case of supervening public interest

iii. Where it would be inequitable to hold the government by its promise

iv. Where the promise is unconstitutional or against public policy

Therefore, if the Government can justify their actions as being covered by any of the above, Promissory Estoppel would not hit such actions. Indeed, what can be distilled from the various decisions over the years is that the applicability of Promissory Estoppel to governmental action may differ from case to case and is by no means a certainty.

Why is this important?

This latest judgment gains particular significance in view of the present COVID-19 outbreak and all the schemes, relaxations and exemptions being offered by the Government for reviving the economy. The similarity between the circumstances in the above case and the present circumstances cannot be ignored.

Several incentives and the fiscal exemptions are being extended by the Government to businesses to aid the recovery of the economy and the businesses from the aftermath of the COVID-19 outbreak. These exemptions and incentives will certainly benefit the businesses to whom they are extended. However, any business which avails of these exemptions or benefits would be best served to keep in mind the possibility of the withdrawal of the said exemptions or benefits in the coming years. The best approach for businesses would be to plan for the future with cautious optimism and prepare for the eventuality of such a withdrawal.

Such a situation may or may not arise in the future, but good, sound and cautious planning will protect these businesses from being caught flatfooted if it does. Businesses would be wise to follow the policy of maintaining a continuous dialogue with the government as regards the efforts undertaken in furtherance of such incentives. Some other prudent measures may include quantifying and crystallizing the losses, should the incentives be withdrawn abruptly. Indeed, in view of the abovementioned case, the best policy, in these uncertain times, is to hope for the best and plan for the worst.