JUDGMENT G. T. NANAVATI, J. - It is the case of the petitioner that relying upon the Government resolution dated December 22, 1977 and the subsequent Government resolution dated August 27, 1980, it decided to set up a new industry for manufacturing E.R.W. steel tubes, conduit pipes and steel pipes for furniture and cycles in the backward area. By March 1, 1981, it invested Rs. 12,91,420. It had opted for the benefit of sales tax deferment. As it had set up a new industry relying upon the promise made by the Government through its aforesaid resolutions and as it had complied with all the conditions contained in those resolutions, it applied for an eligibility certificate to the competent authority and it was granted on January 30, 1982. The certificate was made effective from March 1, 1981 and was to remain valid up to February 21, 1983. The maximum limit of the benefit was certified as Rs. 4,51,997. The petitioner also applied to the sales tax authorities for a deferment certificate and the same was issued on August 6, 1982. The period and the maximum rate of the benefit mentioned therein were the same as mentioned in the eligibility certificate. After the deferment certificate was issued, the petitioner stopped paying sales tax and started availing of the benefit of sales tax deferment. On September 15, 1982, the Government passed another resolution publishing a list of 31 industries declared as excluded industries. Item No. 15 in that list was, "Steel pipes and tubes". As the tubes manufactured by the petitioner were electrical resistance welded tubes, the sales tax authorities were of the view that the industry of the petitioner was included in that list. Therefore, on April 15, 1983 the Commissioner of Sales Tax, respondent No. 2 wrote to the petitioner that the certificate issued by the department had automatically become inoperative from September 15, 1982 as the petitioner had become ineligible to get the advantage of the sales tax deferment scheme. It is because of this denial of the benefit that the petitioner has filed this petition. What is contended on behalf of the petitioner is that the petitioner had set up a new industry relying upon the promise contained in the two Government resolutions and actually it had started commercial production from March 1, 1981 and had become entitled to the benefit of sales tax deferment. What is contended on behalf of the petitioner is that the petitioner had set up a new industry relying upon the promise contained in the two Government resolutions and actually it had started commercial production from March 1, 1981 and had become entitled to the benefit of sales tax deferment. It was, therefore, not open to the Government to go back upon the same and deny the benefit of sales tax deferment on and from September 15, 1982. The question which arises for consideration is whether the doctrine of promissory estoppel would apply in such cases and whether the State Government can be permitted to go back upon its promise by contending that the Government resolution dated September 15, 1982 is applicable to the petitioner also. A similar question arose for consideration in Special Civil Application No. 5108 of 1984 decided on April 23, 1991 (Tata Metals and Strips Ltd. v. State of Gujarat [1992] 87 STC 447 (Guj)) wherein it has been held that the doctrine of promissory estoppel would apply in such cases and that the resolution dated September 15, 1982 cannot be applied to those industries which were set up on the basis of the promise contained in the resolutions dated December 22, 1977 and August 27, 1980 and had become entitled to the benefits available under those resolutions. Following the decision in that case, it will have to be held that notwithstanding that Government resolution dated September 15, 1982, the petitioner remains entitled to the benefit of sales tax deferment as indicated in the eligibility certificate and the sales tax deferment certificate. In the result, this petition is partly allowed and it is declared that notwithstanding the resolution dated September 15, 1982, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of sales tax deferment as indicated in the eligibility certificate and the sales tax deferment certificate. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. Petition partly allowed.