JUDGMENT : H.L. Agrawal, C.J. - By this writ application the petitioner has challenged the vires of the notification dated 9th September, 1977 issued by the State Government in the Finance Department in exercise of powers u/s 6 of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (for short, "the Act") making some further amendments in the earlier notification dated 23rd April, 1976 and giving it retrospective effect from 20th May, 1977. By this amendment, an entry at serial No. 26 has been substituted as follows; "Sl. Description of goods Conditions and exceptions subject No. to which exemption has been allowed (1) (2) (3) 26 Purchase or sale of raw mate- The exemption shall be allowed rials, i.e., goods which directly for a period of five years from go into the composition of the the date from which the manu finished products, when sold to -facturing unit has started produc- a registered dealer who is a tion irrespective of change in manufacturer inside the State ownership, if any, provided the and where such manufacturing dealer or his authorised agent unit has started production furnished a true declaration in before 1st April, 1977, provided form I appended below. that the finished product is sold inside Orissa or in the course of inter-State trade or commerce or export The declaration in form I was also suitably amended. 2. The petitioner, a private limited company, is a registered dealer having Registration Certificate No. DL1260 in the Dhenkanal Circle. It owns a small-scale industry for manufacture of jute twine which went into production from November, 1974. For the purpose of manufacture of jute twine, the petitioner purchased jute as the raw material on furnishing declaration forms in accordance with the certificate. In the course of the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1977-78, opposite party No. 1 by the assessment order dated 14th February, 1979 (annexure 1) accepted the petitioner as a new manufacturer, but assessed on the purchase of jute at the rate of 4 per cent on the basis of the aforesaid notification on the ground that the petitioner had not confined the sales inside Orissa. Earlier to this notification, there is another notification dated 23rd April, 1976, serial No.26 of which reads as follows: Sl. Earlier to this notification, there is another notification dated 23rd April, 1976, serial No.26 of which reads as follows: Sl. Description of goods Conditions and exceptions subject No. to which exemption has been allowed (1) (2) (3) 26 Purchase or sale of raw mate- The exemption shall be allowed rials, i.e., goods which directly for a period of five years from the go into the composition of the date from which such registered finished products, when sold to dealer has started production, a registered dealer who is provided that he or his authorized manufacturer inside the State agent furnishes a true declaration and who has started production in form I appended below. after 1st April, 1969. A similar declaration in form I was also provided. 3. The Case of the petitioner is that the amended notification of the year 1977 would have no application to its case as at the time the petitioner-industry went into production in November, 1974, the impugned notification of the year 1977 had not come into existence and the petitioner is entitled to exemption for the entire period of 5 years on the purchase of the raw material for the manufacture of the finished product. 4. No counter-affidavit has been filed. 5. It was submitted by Mr. Agarwalla, Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, that further conditions and limitations regarding the mode of sale of the finished products by the manufacturer under the impugned notification were not there in the earlier notification under which assurance the petitioner had started the manufacture of jute twine. Yet another small argument that was made by the Learned Counsel was that although the notification dated 9th September, 1977 clearly stipulated that it would come into force with effect from 20th May, 1977, it was published in the Gazette on 26th May, 1977, and therefore it could not come into force prior to the date of its publication. This contention was not challenged by Mr. Patnaik, learned Standing Counsel for the department, and the contention prima facie having substance must be accepted. Any relief that may be admissible to the petitioner on this ground should be allowed. 6. The larger question, however, that was raised for our consideration by Mr. Agarwalla is of more significance. This contention was not challenged by Mr. Patnaik, learned Standing Counsel for the department, and the contention prima facie having substance must be accepted. Any relief that may be admissible to the petitioner on this ground should be allowed. 6. The larger question, however, that was raised for our consideration by Mr. Agarwalla is of more significance. He submitted that the rate of imposition of tax is contained in the charging section, namely, Section 5, and the 5th proviso which deals with the subject-matter of purchase of raw materials which are used, inter alia, for manufacture or processing of goods for sale, etc., did not contain, at the time when the impugned order of assessment (annexure 1) was passed, any condition regarding the situs of sale of the finished products. All that it contained was that the raw material should not be utilised for any other purpose than manufacture. In that event, the dealer had to pay "the difference in tax or the tax, as the case may be, payable had he not furnished the declaration". 7. By Orissa Act 23 of 1983, the restriction prohibiting sale of the finished products "outside the State of Orissa" was imposed for the first time in the 5th proviso. In this background, it was strongly contended by Mr. Agarwalla that the executive authority of the State Government had no power to impose any restriction regarding the manner of disposal of the finished products out of the raw materials purchased on the basis of the declarations till such a power was conferred by the legislature. 8. From the assessment order (annexure 1) it appears that opposite party No.1 has raised a demand of Rs.13,184.96 on the only ground that the petitioner had effected sales of the manufactured jute twine through its commission agents outside the State of Orissa, and inasmuch as it violated the said notification dated 9th September, 1977, the petitioner contravened the terms of the purchase and was therefore liable to be taxed at the prescribed rate of 4 per cent. It was submitted with equal force that the petitioner's right in the circumstances could not be taken away by any retrospective amendment and that the State Government had no power or authority to issue a notification having retrospective operation which was beyond the competence of the delegated authority and thus it was without jurisdiction and ultra vires the 5th proviso to Section 5 of the Act. He placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Polestar Electronic (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner, Sales Tax [1978] 41 STC 409 which was also referred to with approval in a subsequent decision of that Court in Govind Saran Ganga Saran v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1985] 60 STC 1. 9. Mr. Patnaik, the learned Standing Counsel, could not meet the submission of Mr. Agarwalla and almost conceded to the position. But in view of the fact that the question raised on behalf of the petitioner is of a wide amplitude and may affect a large number of dealers, we can more conveniently decide the issue in favour of the petitioner by applying the doctrine of promissory estoppel. 10. It was also submitted by Mr. Agarwalla that the petitioner having started the industry and taken up the business of manufacture of jute twine under the promise of exemption from sales tax on the raw materials for a period of 5 years under the notification of the year 1976 which did not contain any restriction on the right of the manufacturers to sell the finished products outside the State of Orissa, the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of exemption with right to sell the finished products freely at any place as Calcutta was a better market for sale of the finished products, i.e., jute twine. 11. The doctrine of promissory estoppel is well-known and has also been accepted by a Bench of this Court in the case of Sri Jagannath Roller Flour Mills v. State of Orissa AIR 1986 Orissa 163 where the promise of exemption from sales tax and octroi duty for a period of 5 years was purported to be withdrawn before the expiry of the said period and the action of withdrawal was held to be invalid being hit by the doctrine of promissory estoppel. I therefore need not enter into any discussion about application of this principle to the facts of present case. I therefore need not enter into any discussion about application of this principle to the facts of present case. In my considered opinion, the petitioner is similarly entitled to claim the protection of this principle of estoppel as he might have been attracted by the tax-holiday offered by the State Government to set up an industrial unit in the State of Orissa with a hope that he might market the finished products even outside the State to get a better price. If this facility is suddenly withdrawn by changing the policy, it would upset an entrepreneur and the rule of law will prohibit the same. 12. I would accordingly allow the writ application and quash the additional demand raised in annexure 1, but would make no order as to costs. B.K. Behera, J. 13. I agree with my Lord, the Chief Justice. Final Result : Allowed