Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The State Government however went back upon this assurance and a letter dated 20th January, 1970 was addressed by the 5th respondent intimating that the Government had taken a policy decision that new Vanaspati Units in the State which go into commercial production by 30th September, 1970 would be given partial concession in Sales Tax at the following rates for a period of three years:

First year of production 31/2% Second year of production 3% Third year of production 21/2% The appellant by its letter dated 25th June, 1970 pointed out to the Secretary to the Government that the appellant proposed to start commercial production of Vanaspati with effect from 1st July, 1970, and stated that, as notified in the letter dated 20th January, 1970, the appellant would be availing of the exemption granted by the State Government and would be charging sales tax at the rate of 31/2% instead of 7% on the sales of Vanaspati manufactured by it for a period of one year commencing from 1st July, 1970. The factory of the appellant thereafter went into production from 2nd July, 1970 and the appellant informed the Secretary to the Government about the same by its letter dated 3rd July, 1970. The State Government however once again changed its decision and on 12th August, 1970 a news item appeared in the Northern India Patricia stating that the Government had decided to rescind the earlier decision i.e. the decision set out in the letter dated 20th January, 1970, to allow concession in the rates of Sales Tax to new Vanaspati Units. The appellant thereupon filed a writ petition in the High Court of Allahabad asking for a writ directing the State Government to exempt the sales of Vanaspati manufactured by the appellant from sales tax for a period of three years commencing from 2nd July, 1970 by issuing a notification under section 4A and not to collect or charge sales tax from the appellant for the said period of three years. It appears that in the writ petition as originally filed, there was no plea of promissory estoppel taken against the State Government and the writ petition was, therefore, amended by obtaining leave of the High Court with a view to introducing the plea of promissory estoppel. The appellant urged in the amended writ petition that the 4th respondent acting on behalf of the State Government had given an unequivocal assurance to the appellant that the appellant would be entitled to exemption from payment of sales tax for a period of three years from the date of commencement of the production and this assurance was given by the 4th respondent intending or knowing that it would be acted on by the appellant and in fact the appellant, acting in reliance on it, established the Vanaspati factory by investing a large amount and the State Government was, therefore, bound to honour the assurance and exempt the Vanaspati manufactured and sold by the appellant from payment of sales tax for a period of three years from 2nd July, 1970. This plea based on the doctrine of promissory estoppel was, however rejected by the Division Bench of the High Court principally on the ground that the appellant had waived the exemption, if any, by accepting the concessional rates set out in the letter of the Deputy Secretary dated 20th January, 1970. The appellant thereupon preferred the present appeal after obtaining a certificate of fitness from the High Court.

The principal argument advanced on behalf of the appellant in support of the appeal was that the 4th respondent had given a categorical assurance on behalf of the State Government that the appellant would be exempt from payment of sales tax for a period of three years from the date of commencement of production and such assurance was given intending or knowing that it would be acted on by the appellant and in fact the appellant, acting in reliance on it, altered its position and the State Government was, therefore, bound, on the principle of promissory estoppel, to honour the assurance and exempt the appellant from sales tax for a period of three years from 2nd July, 1970, being the date on which the factory of the appellant commenced production. The appellant assailed the view taken by the High Court that this claim of the appellant for exemption based on the doctrine of promissory estoppel was barred by waiver, because the appellant had by its letter dated 25th June, 1970 accepted that it would avail of the exemption granted under the letter of the 5th respondent dated 20th January, 1970 and charged sales tax at the concessional rate of 31/2% instead of 7% during the first year of its production. The appellant urged that waiver was a question of fact which was required to be pleaded and since no plea of waiver was raised in the affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government in opposition to the writ petition, it was not competent to the State Government to rely on the plea of waiver for the first time at the hearing of the writ petition. Even if the plea of waiver were allowed to be raised, notwithstanding that it did not find place in the pleadings, no waiver was made out, said the appellant, since there was nothing to show that were the circumstances in which the appellant had addressed the letter dated 25th June, 1970 stating that it would avail of the exemption granted under the letter dated 20th January, 1970 and it was not possible to say that the appellant, with full knowledge of its right to claim total exemption from payment of sales tax, waived that right and agreed to accept the concessional rates set out in the letter dated 20th January, 1970. The State Government on the other hand strongly pressed the plea of waiver and submitted that the appellant had clearly waived its right to complete exemption from payment of Sales Tax by addressing the letter dated 25th June, 1970. The State Government also contended that, in any event, even if there was no waiver, the appellant was not entitled to enforce the assurance given by the 4th respondent, since such assurance was not binding on the State Government and more-over, in the absence of notification under section 4A, the State Government could not be prevented from enforcing the liability to sales tax imposed on the appellant under the provisions of the Act. It was urged on behalf of the State Government that there could be no promissory estoppel against the State Government so as to inhibit it from formulating and implementing its policies in public interest. These were broadly the rival contentions urged on behalf of the parties and we shall now proceed to consider them.

We shall first deal with the question of waiver since that can be disposed of in a few words. The High Court held that even if there was an assurance given by the 4th respondent on behalf of the State Government and such assurance was binding on the State Government on the principle of promissory estoppel, the appellant had waived its right under it by accepting the concessional rates of sales tax set out in the letter of the 5th respondent dated 20th January, 1970. We do not think this view taken by the High Court can be sustained. In the first place, it is elementary that waiver is a question of fact and it must be properly pleaded and proved. No plea of waiver can be allowed to be raised unless it is pleaded and the factual foundation for it is laid in the pleadings. Here it was common ground that the plea of waiver was not taken by the State Government in the affidavit filed on its behalf in reply to the writ petition, nor was it indicated even vaguely in such affidavit. It was raised for the first time at the hearing of the writ petition. That was clearly impermissible without an amendment of the affidavit in reply or a supplementary affidavit raising such plea. If waiver were properly pleaded in the affidavit in reply, the appellant would have had an opportunity of placing on record facts showing why and in what circumstances the appellant came to address the letter dated 25th June, 1970 and establishing that on these facts there was no waiver by the appellant of its right to exemption under the assurance given by the 4th respondent. But in the absence of such pleading in the affidavit in reply, this opportunity was denied to the appellant. It was, therefore, not right for the High Court to have allowed the plea of waiver to be raised against the appellant and that plea should have been rejected in limine.

Secondly, it is difficult to see how, on the facts, the plea of waiver could be said to have been made out by the State Government. Waiver means abandonment of a right and it may be either express or implied from conduct, but its basic requirement is that it must be "an intentional act with knowledge". Per Lord Chelmsford, L.C. in Earl of Darnley v. London, Chatham and Dover Rly. Co. There can be no waiver unless the person who is said to have waived is fully informed as to his right and with full knowledge of such right, he intentionally abandons it. It is pointed out in Halsbury's Laws of England (4 d) Volume 16 in paragraph 1472 at page 994 that for a "waiver to be effectual it is essential that the person granting it should be fully informed as to his rights" and Isaacs, J, delivering the judgment of the High Court of Australia in Craine v. Colonial Mutual Fire Insurance Co. Ltd. has also emphasised that waiver "must be with knowledge, an essential supported by many authorities". Now in the present case there is nothing to show that at the date when the appellant addressed the letter dated 25th June, 1970, it had full knowledge of its right to exemption under the assurance given by the 4th respondent and that it intentionally abandoned such right. It is difficult to speculate what was the reason why the appellant addressed the letter dated 25th June, 1970 stating that it would avail of the concessional rates of sales tax granted under the letter dated 20th January, 1970. It is possible that the appellant might have thought that since no notification exempting the appellant from sales tax had been issued by the State Government under section 4A, the appellant was legally not entitled to exemption and that is why the appellant might have chosen to accept whatever concession was being granted by the State Government. The claim of the appellant to exemption could be sustained only on the doctrine of promissory estoppel and this doctrine could not be said to be so well defined in its scope and ambit and so free from uncertainty in its application that we should be compelled to hold that the appellant must have had knowledge of its right to exemption on the basis of promissory estoppel at the time when it addressed the letter dated 25th June, 1970. In fact, in the petition as originally filed, the right to claim total exemption from sales tax was not based on the plea of promissory estoppel which was introduced only by way of amendment. Moreover, it must be remembered that there is no presumption that every person knows the law. It is often said that every one is presumed to know the law, but that is not a correct statement: there is no such maxim known to the law. Over a hundred and thirty years ago, Maule, J., pointed out in Martindala v. Faulkner(3): "There is no presumption in this country that every person knows the law: it would be contrary to common sense and reason if it were so". Scrutton, also once said: "It is impossible to know all the statutory law, and not very possible to know all the common law." But it was Lord Atkin who, as in so many other spheres, put the point in its proper context when he said in Evans v. Bartlem(1)"_____the fact is that there is not and never has been a presumption that every one knows the law. There is the rule that ignorance of the law does not excuse, a maxim of very different scope and application." It is, therefore, not possible to presume, in the absence of any material placed before the Court, that the appellant had full knowledge of its right to exemption so as to warrant an inference that the appellant waived such right by addressing the letter dated 25th June, 1970. We accordingly reject the plea of waiver raised on behalf of the State Government.