Page 214 - GSTL_2nd April 2020_Vol 35_Part 1

116 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 35
powers conferred by Section 49 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. By the
said notification rebate in electricity charges to the extent of 33.33% was
given to the industries, which were set up in the hill areas during the speci-
fied period. It is also an admitted position that thereafter, by Notifications
dated 18-6-1998 and 25-1-1999, issued in exercise of the powers conferred
by Section 49 of the Act of 1948, the percentage of rebate granted by the ear-
lier notification was reduced to 17%. However, by Notification dated 7-8-
2000 the benefit, which was granted to the industries set up in the hill areas
regarding rebate in the electricity charges, was completely withdrawn.
What is relevant to notice is that it is not in dispute that the Notification
dated 7-8-2000 withdrawing the benefits granted earlier, was issued in ex-
ercise of powers conferred by Section 24 of the Uttar Pradesh Electricity Re-
forms Act, 1999. The abovementioned fact makes it evident that the benefits,
which were granted and/or curtailed in exercise of statutory powers, were subse-
quently withdrawn in exercise of another statutory power conferred by another
statute, namely, the Uttar Pradesh Electricity Reforms Act, 1999. In the light of
the abovementioned facts, the question whether the principle of promissory estoppel
would apply to exercise of statutory powers will have to be considered.
32. x x x
33. Where public interest warrants, the principles of promissory estoppel
cannot be invoked. The Government can change the policy in public inter-
est. However, it is well settled that taking cue from this doctrine, the authority
cannot be compelled to do something which is not allowed by law or prohibited by
law. There is no promissory estoppel against the settled proposition of law. Doc-
trine of promissory estoppel cannot be invoked for enforcement of a promise made
contrary to law, because none can be compelled to act against the statute. Thus,
the Government or public authority cannot be compelled to make a provi-
sion which is contrary to law.“
(emphasis supplied)
34. In I.T.C. Bhadrachalam Paperboards and Another v. Mandal Revenue Of-
ficer, A.P and Ors., (1996) 6 SCC 634, the controversy was over the applicability of
an exemption notification issued under the Andhra Pradesh Non-agricultural
Land Assessment Act, 1963. The only mode of publication of such exemption
order was publication in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette. After such publication,
orders granting exemption were required to be laid before the Legislative As-
sembly. There was no other mode of publication prescribed. It is in that context
the Supreme Court found an order of exemption granted in a Government order,
which was not published in the Official Gazettes nor issued under any enactment
was not enforceable. The Supreme Court held that the Government can act only
in accordance with the statute. One of the submissions before the Court was that
even if it is held that publication of GOM in the Gazette was mandatory and the
non-publication in the Gazette as required would render it invalid, yet, GOMs
could be treated as a representation and a promise and the doctrine of promisso-
ry estoppel can be invoked to carry out such representation. The Court while
dealing with this submission holds in paragraph 30 as under :
“30. It is submitted that by allowing the Government to go back on such
representation, the appellant will be prejudiced. The learned counsel also
contended that where the Government makes a representation, acting with-
in the scope of its ostensible authority, and if another person acts upon such

GST LAW TIMES  2nd April 2020  278