1. A batch of two writ petitions has been filed by two petitioners questioning the legality of the Notification dated 15.9.2005 issued by the Principal Secretary to the Government of Meghalaya, Excise, Registration, Taxation and Stamps Department, (respondent No.2), which has the effect of withdrawing/cancelling the exemption of sales tax payable for sale of goods, manufactured by the petitioners, in the course of inter-State trade or commerce and confining such exemption only to registered dealers or the Government. 2. To simplify the matter, I will at first confine myself to the facts of the case in WP(C) No. 113(SH)/2007 and on the basis of my decision thereon, I will then attempt to dispose of the other writ petition. The facts giving rise to WP(C) No.113(SH)/2007, as projected in the writ petition, are that the Government of Meghalaya in the Industries Department, in the year 1997, in order to take advantage of the liberalized economic scenario in the country and also to keep pace with the development in the National Industrial Sector framed a new Industrial Policy with the following objectives: - (a) To generate employment opportunities for the local people in the industries and allied sectors. (b) To encourage the setting up of selective medium and large scale industries by utilizing the resource base of the State but compatible and, hence, encourage positive efforts towards the regeneration of the environment. (c) To encourage need based development of local entrepreneurial skills through investment and training programmes in District, sub-divisional and block levels. (d) To simplify rules and procedures by providing a single window clearance facility at the District Levels for the small scale sector and at the State Level for medium and large scale industries. (e) To promote and encourage high value, low volume products in view of the transportation bottlenecks in the State. 3. It appears that as per this Industrial Policy, the State of Meghalaya, assured to provide subsidies, incentives and assistance to the small scale as well as medium and large scale categories of industries in the State. The petitioner's company is admittedly an industry falling within the ambit of large and medium scale industry. This Industrial Policy, among others, assured that sales tax exemption would be given on sales of finished products for a period of seven years from the date of commercial production. The petitioner's company is admittedly an industry falling within the ambit of large and medium scale industry. This Industrial Policy, among others, assured that sales tax exemption would be given on sales of finished products for a period of seven years from the date of commercial production. It is the case of the petitioner that the State of Meghalaya, in furtherance of this promise/declaration, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3(6) of the Meghalaya Sale Tax Act and sub-section (1) of section 3(6) of the Meghalaya Finance (Sales Tax) Act and under section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, issued the Notification dated 12.4.2001 notifying the Meghalaya Industries (Sales Tax Exemption Scheme) 2001 ('the scheme'). Under the scheme, it was provided that all eligible units, would be entitled to Sales Tax Exemption, on sales of finished products manufactured by such eligible units within the State of Meghalaya and in the course of inter-State trade and commerce in conformity with the provisions of the Industrial Policy. The scheme defined the criteria of eligibility for availing the benefits. Clause 3(1) of the scheme defines any unit to mean Industrial or Tourism unit which had taken all initial effective steps on or after 15.8.1997. Clause 2(3)(i) of the scheme defines initial effective steps as follows: - Units would be deemed to have completed initial effective steps if all of the following have been achieved. (a) Effective possession of land. (b) Registration of the firm/company/society/trust with the appropriate authority. (c) Provisional registration with the appropriate authority. (d) Preparation of project report. (e) Sanction of power connection. (f) Settlement of means of finance for the project including sanction of terms loans. Clause 3(3)(ii) defines a unit to be deemed to have completed a final effective steps if the following have been achieved. (a) Total disbursement of the term loan. (b) Receipt of all relevant approvals and clearance from the appropriate authorities. (c) Connection of power. (d) Allotment of raw materials wherever applicable. (e) Sanction of working capital. (f) Commissioning of the plant except in the case of Tourism Units. (g) Receipt of local employment certificate. (h) Fit to render services for which the units were set up, in case of Tourism units, only. 4. (c) Connection of power. (d) Allotment of raw materials wherever applicable. (e) Sanction of working capital. (f) Commissioning of the plant except in the case of Tourism Units. (g) Receipt of local employment certificate. (h) Fit to render services for which the units were set up, in case of Tourism units, only. 4. Insofar as sales tax exemption to eligible units in respect of large and medium scale industries is concerned, clause 4(3) of the scheme indicated the nature of exemption as well as the period of emption in the following manner Large and Medium Scale Industries Nature of Exemption Period of exemption Total Sales Tax exemption on sale of finished products within the State or in the course of Inter- State Trade or Commerce which are otherwise taxable under the Meghalaya Sales Tax Act or Meghalaya Finance Sales Tax Act, limited to goods actually produced in the industrial unit not exceeding its install capacity. 7 years from the date of commercial production as reported and recorded by the Meghalaya Industrial Development Corporation. In terms of clause 5 of the scheme, the period of validity of Eligibility Certificate was for seven years from the date of commercial production as reported and recorded by the Meghalaya Industrial Development Corporation in respect of large and medium scale industries. Another notification dated 12.4.2001, was issued by the State respondents, in exercise of the powers conferred under section 8(5) of the Central Sale Tax Act, 1956, directing that no tax under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, shall be payable by eligible industrial units to whom an Exemption Certificate in the form of Exemption Authorization has been granted by the Commissioner of Taxes with the prior approval of the Taxation Department in respect of sale of goods manufactured by such units in the course of inter-State trading during the period subject to the condition that such sale to any person outside the State of Meghalaya is supported by proper documents of sale. This Notification came into force with effect from 12.8.1997. This Notification, it may be noted, is a part of the Meghalaya Industries (Sales Tax Exemption) Schemes, 2001, which was issued in conformity with the said Industrial Policy. This Notification came into force with effect from 12.8.1997. This Notification, it may be noted, is a part of the Meghalaya Industries (Sales Tax Exemption) Schemes, 2001, which was issued in conformity with the said Industrial Policy. It is the case of the petitioner that, encouraged by and acting upon the aforesaid promise made in the said Industrial Policy and the scheme issued thereunder, it set up a plant for production of Bitumen Emulsion and Allied Modified Bituminous Products at 9th Mile, Baridua, Bymihat, Ri-bhoi District, Meghalaya. For this purpose, the petitioner claimed to have undertaken the following activities; (a) For the purpose of setting up its industry it acquired a plot of land measuring 6926.90 sq. mtrs. at 9th Mile, Baridua, Bymihat, Ri-bhoi District. After taking effective possession of this plot it had set up its industry. (b) It thereafter registered itself with the respondent No.4, who is the Managing Director, Meghalaya Industrial Development Corporation Limited, Shillong. (c) The project report was prepared for the purpose of setting up the aforementioned industry by in house. (d) For the purpose of setting up the industry, it obtained an amount of Rs. 17.10 lakh from the contribution of the promoters as initial investment and also raised unsecured loan for Rs. 40.62 lakh as on 31.3.2005. (e) Its working capital was also sanctioned by UCO Bank, Fancy Bazar, Guwahati on 18.3.2005. (f) It also obtained the approval and clearance from the appropriate authorities in respect of:- (i) Consent to operate from the Pollution Control Board vide letter dated 31.3.2007. (ii) Eligibility Certificate from the respondent No.4 bearing Registration No. 368/RB-088 dated 29.5.2006. (iii) Consent from the Meghalaya State Electricity Board for installation of 100 KVA DG Set vide letter dated 24.1.2005. (iv) MIDC - Single Window Clearance vide letter dated 3.2.2004. (g) it started its commercial production on 25.3.2005. 5. According to the petitioner, in setting up this industry, it had spent huge amounts of money and thereby changed its position on the basis of the assurance made by the respondent authorities in the said Industrial Policy and the scheme issued thereunder. The relevant particulars of the investment are as under: PROJECT COSTS SI. No. Particulars Amount in rupees (lakh) Amount in rupees (lakh) Up to 31.3.2005 Up to 31.3.2006 1. Land and site development 3.49 37.97 2. Building and Civil Works 17.17 9.99 3. The relevant particulars of the investment are as under: PROJECT COSTS SI. No. Particulars Amount in rupees (lakh) Amount in rupees (lakh) Up to 31.3.2005 Up to 31.3.2006 1. Land and site development 3.49 37.97 2. Building and Civil Works 17.17 9.99 3. Plant and Machinery and Utility installation 94.90 113.62 4. Miscellaneous fixed assets 0.82 5.41 5. Preliminary and pre-operative expenses 9.15 1.14 6. Margin money for working capital 89.00 100.31 Total 214.53 268.71 6. It is the further case of the petitioner that the respondent No.4 had issued the Eligibility certificate under the Meghalaya Industrial Policy, 1997, in which it was stated that the Petitioner Company was eligible for acquiring the incentives as per the new Industrial Policy which came into effect from 15.8.1997 and that the date of commercial production of the unit of the petitioner company was 25.3.2005. The petitioner was also granted a Certificate of Authorization by the Assessing Officer in accordance with the Meghalaya Industrial (Sales Tax Exemption) Scheme, 2001, only after passing the assessment order for that particular period. The Assessing Officer (respondent No.5) by Assessment Order dated 15.2.2007 assessed the turnover aggregate of the sale price in respect of the sale of goods in course of inter-State trade or commerce for the period from 5.9.2005 to 30.9.2005 at Rs. 24,52,116 and accordingly determined the tax payable at Rs. 98,085. However, for the period from 1.4.2005 to 4.9.2005, the tax payable for the same was assessed as nil. Following the Assessment Order dated 15.2.2007, the respondent No.5 issued the demand notice dated 20.2.2007 requiring the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 98,085 to the Treasury/Sub-Treasury Officer at Nongpoh, on or before 19.3.2007, failing which, penalty would be imposed and a certificate forwarded to the Collector for recovery of the whole amount as an arrear of land revenue. This Assessment Order was parsed in accordance with the Notification dated 5.9.2005 issued by the respondent No.2 by which the earlier Notification dated 12.4.2001 came to be superceded with the result that the benefit under the Notification dated 12.4.2001 came to be restricted to sales made in course of inter-State trade or commerce only to registered dealers or Government. This Assessment Order was parsed in accordance with the Notification dated 5.9.2005 issued by the respondent No.2 by which the earlier Notification dated 12.4.2001 came to be superceded with the result that the benefit under the Notification dated 12.4.2001 came to be restricted to sales made in course of inter-State trade or commerce only to registered dealers or Government. It may be noticed that the in terms of the earlier Notification dated 12.4.2001 which was issued in exercise of the powers conferred by section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act and pursuant to the New Industrial Policy, 1997, the benefit of Sales Tax Exemption in respect of sales made in course of inter-State trade or commerce was not confined only to registered dealers and Government. 7. It is contended by the petitioner that the Notification dated 5.9.2005 was issued purportedly in accordance with the amendment of section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, by Act 20 of 2002, which came into force with effect from 11.5.2002, and since this amendment is prospective in nature and it can in no way be held applicable to sales tax exemption already allowed under or in accordance with the pre-amended section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. It is also contended by the petitioner that the impugned Notification is in violation of the principles of natural justice and the doctrine of promissory estoppel. It is the case of the petitioner that the newly amended section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, confining the powers of granting exemption by a Notification to registered dealers and the Government will have no effect on past exemption. The contention of the petitioner is that the Notification dated 5.9.2005 superceding the earlier Notification dated 12.4.2001 is not applicable to the petitioner and is hit by the doctrine of promissory estoppel. The contention of the petitioner is that the Notification dated 5.9.2005 superceding the earlier Notification dated 12.4.2001 is not applicable to the petitioner and is hit by the doctrine of promissory estoppel. It is contended by the petitioner that in terms of the Industrial Policy, 1997, sale tax exemption was available to any dealer and not only to registered dealers and the Government and as such, the sale tax exemption for a period of seven years from the date of commercial production enjoyed by the petitioner cannot be set at naught by the impugned Notification and that the impugned Notification, in so far as it is repugnant to the Industrial Policy, 1997, and the Meghalaya Industries (Sales Tax Exemption) Schemes, 2001, is bad to that extent and as such, the same is liable to be quashed. The petitioner further contends that on the promise held out by the State respondents in their Industrial Policy, 1997, it had altered its position by incurring huge expenditures and as such the respondent authorities are bound in law and in equity to fulfill its promises. Consequently, so submits the petitioner, the impugned assessment order as well as the demand notice, which are issued pursuant to the impugned Notification cannot stand independently and are liable to be quashed. 8. The writ petition is opposed by the State respondents. In their affidavit-in-opposition, it is stated by them that the writ petition is not maintainable on the ground that the policy decision of the Government or the wisdom of the economic policy of the Government cannot be challenged before this court under article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Meghalaya Industries (Sales Tax Exemption) Schemes, 2001, was introduced by the Government for the purpose of economic policy and, therefore, deviation from that policy by issuing the impugned Notification, which, in turn, was done in accordance with the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, as amended by the Finance Act, 2002, is not contrary to any Acts, Rules or the Constitution of India and the same cannot be assailed before this court. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed at the preliminary stage on this ground alone. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed at the preliminary stage on this ground alone. It is also contended by the State respondents that the impugned assessment order is appellable before the Central Sales Tax Appellate Authority under the authority of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and the petitioner, by not approaching the statutory appellate authority, is, therefore, barred from invoking article 226 of the Constitution for non-exhaustion of alternative statutory remedy. It is pointed out by the State respondents that the impugned Notification was issued consequent upon the amendment of section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, in the Finance Act, 2002, by which the Central Sale Tax Exemption is now confined to sales of goods in the course of inter-State trade or commerce to registered dealers or the Government and on fulfillment of the conditions laid down under section 8(4) of the Act. According to the State-respondents, the exemption of Central Sales Tax on the sales of finished products manufactured by eligible industrial units under the Meghalaya Industries (Sales Tax Exemption) Schemes, 2001, had remained valid without any restriction up to 10.5.2002, but following the amendment of section 8(5) by the Finance Act, 2002, such benefit came to be confined only to sales of goods to a registered dealer or the Government subject to fulfillment of the requirement laid down under section 8(4) of the Act. As the impugned Notification has been issued in terms of the amended section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, the question of invoking promissory estoppels cannot and does not arise inasmuch as the impugned Notification was issued in conformity with the Central Sales Tax Act: the State Government has no option but to follow and implement the Central legislation. The promise held out by the State-respondents with good intention under the Industrial Policy, 1997 regrettably failed due to the amendment of section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, in the year 2002, by the Parliament of India and that levying of sales tax on sales of goods in course of inter-state trade or commerce made by dealers is the subject-matter and power of the Central Government under the List I of the 7th Schedule to the Constitution: Parliament has the exclusive powers to make laws with respect to any matters enumerated in List I also referred to as "the Union List" and as such, the Meghalaya Industrial Policy, 1997, as well as the Meghalaya Industries (Sales Tax Exemption) Scheme, 2001, cannot go beyond Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, as amended in 2002 by the Parliament. Taking into consideration of the amended section of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, the State Government was changing its policy decision. The impugned Notification, the impugned Assessment Order and also the impugned notice of demand, therefore, do not suffer from any illegality and obviously do not call for any interference of this court. 9. Dr. A.K. Saraf, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, submits that the impugned Notification dated 5.9.2005 has been purportedly issued by the State-respondents following the amendment of section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 limiting the powers of the State Government to grant exemption of sales tax in the course of inter-State trade commerce only to registered dealers and the amended section 8(5), which came into force with effect from 11.5.2002 and is, therefore, prospective in operation, cannot take away the benefit of the tax exemption already granted to the petitioner by the Notification dated 12.4.2001: the impugned Notification superseding the Notification dated 12.4.2001 is, therefore, bad in law and is liable to be interfered with. It is also contended by the learned senior counsel that the Notification dated 12.4.2001 was issued in pursuance of and in conformity with the Meghalaya Industrial Policy, 1997 and the Meghalaya Industries (Sales Tax Exemption) Schemes, 2001 by which the benefit of tax exemption permissible was not confined to sale of goods in the course of inter-State trade or commerce only in respect of a registered dealer and Government, and the impugned Notification is to that extent repugnant to the Meghalaya Industrial Policy, 1997 ('the Policy') and the Meghalaya (Sales Tax Exemption) Schemes, 2001 ('the scheme') and cannot stand. It is also the contention of the learned senior counsel that the petitioner, acting upon the unequivocal declarations/promises made by the State-respondents in the Policy and the scheme, took steps for establishment of its industry by investing huge amounts of money, and the State-respondents are, therefore, bound by the doctrine of promissory estoppel to fulfill their promises: a clear case of the doctrine of promissory estoppel is made out by the petitioner. As the impugned Notification violates the legal and fundamental and legal rights of the petitioner guaranteed under articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 300A of the Constitution, submits the learned senior counsel, the petitioner is entitled to a writ of certiorari and a writ of mandamus to enforce and protect its rights. Heavy reliance is placed by the learned senior counsel on the following decisions: - (a) U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. and Another v. Sant Steels & Alloys (P.) Ltd. and Others, (2008) 2 SCC 777 ; (b) State of Punjab v. Nestle India Ltd. and Another, (200.4) 6 SCC 465; (c) Mis. Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Utter Pradesh and Others, (1979) 2 SCC 409 ; (d) Manjushree Extrusions Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Assam and Ors., (2004) 2 GLR 218 and (e) Union of India and Ors. v. Shree Ganapati Rolling Mills (P.) Ltd. and Ors., 2006 (4) GLT1. 10. Mr. S.P. Mahanta, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State-respondents, strenuously defends the impugned Notification and contends that the same has been issued in accordance with and consequent upon the amendment of section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 by the Parliament and the State-respondents have no alternative but to follow and implement the Central Legislation. Mr. S.P. Mahanta, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State-respondents, strenuously defends the impugned Notification and contends that the same has been issued in accordance with and consequent upon the amendment of section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 by the Parliament and the State-respondents have no alternative but to follow and implement the Central Legislation. It is also his submission that the doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be pressed into service in this case when the Notification dated 12.4.2001 has fallen foul of a statutory provision, namely, the newly amended section 8(5) of the Central Sales Act, 1956: the law is now well-settled that the doctrine cannot be pressed into aid to compel the Government to carry out a representation or promise which is contrary to law or which was outside the authority or power of the officer of the Government or of the public authority. He maintains that the impugned Notification was issued after a conscious policy decision taken by the State-respondents keeping in mind the amendment of the Central Sales Act, 1956, and the policy decision taken by the State-respondents pertaining to economic policy cannot be challenged before this court. Mrs. T. Yangi, the learned counsel for the respondent No.4 also adopts the same line of arguments advanced by the learned Additional Advocate General and submits that no interference is called for in the impugned Notification. 11. The Industrial Policy, 1997 was launched by the State of Meghalaya with a view to take advantage of liberalized economic scenario in the country and also to keep pace with developments in the National Industrial Sector. The objectives of the policy, among others, are to generate employment opportunities for the local people in the village and small scale industries as well as selective large and medium industries, to achieve a balanced and growth-oriented development covering the entire State through promotion of these industries, to create a conducive environment for Industrial Development by creation of the basic infrastructural facilities and by setting up of industrial areas, growth centre and export promotion industrial park for the overall improvement in the quality of life. Towards meeting these objectives, the Government of Meghalaya decided to provide a package of subsidies, incentives and assistance to the small scale as well as medium and large scale categories of industry in Meghalaya under "The Meghalaya Incentive Scheme, 1997". Towards meeting these objectives, the Government of Meghalaya decided to provide a package of subsidies, incentives and assistance to the small scale as well as medium and large scale categories of industry in Meghalaya under "The Meghalaya Incentive Scheme, 1997". One of such incentives envisaged for "Large and Medium Scale Industries" is sales tax exemption whereby Meghalaya Sales Tax as well as sales tax on sale of finished goods in the course of inter-State trade or commerce will be exempted for a period of 7 years from the date of commercial production. Pursuant to the Meghalaya Incentive Scheme, 1997, the State of Meghalaya in the Department of Excise, Registration, Taxation and Stamps issued the Notification dated 12.4.2001 notifying the scheme called "the Meghalaya Industries (Sales Tax Exemption) Schemes, 2001, which was deemed to have come into force with effect from 12.8.1997. Clause 1(3) of the schemes provides that the schemes shall apply to the industrial units in Meghalaya which are considered eligible for sales tax exemption on sale of finished products manufactured by such eligible units within the State of Meghalaya and in the course of inter-State trade or commerce in conformity of the provisions of the Industrial Policy of Meghalaya, 1997. Thereafter, the State, Government issued the Notification dated 12.4.2001, which is in the following terms: "No. ERTS(T)64/98/88 - In exercise of the powers conferred by sub­section (5) of section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, the Governor of Meghalaya, being satisfied that it is necessary to do so in the public interest, is pleased to direct that no tax under this Act shall be payable by any eligible industrial unit, to whom an exemption certificate in the form of Certificate of Authorization has been granted by the Commissioner of Taxes with the prior approval of the Taxation Department, in respect of sale of goods manufactured by such unit in the course of inter-State trade or commerce during the period of validity of the Certificate of Authorization, subject to the condition that such sale to any person outside the State of Meghalaya is supported by proper documents of Sale. This shall be deemed to have come into force with effect from 12th August, 1997. Sd/- (P.J. Bazeley) Principal Secretary to the Government of Meghalaya, Excise, Registration, Taxation, Stamp Department." 12. This shall be deemed to have come into force with effect from 12th August, 1997. Sd/- (P.J. Bazeley) Principal Secretary to the Government of Meghalaya, Excise, Registration, Taxation, Stamp Department." 12. Since the controversy revolves around the legality of the Notification dated 5.9.2005, which was purportedly issued under the newly amended section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, it will be beneficial to reproduce both the Notification and the statutory provisions: "No. ERTS(T)64/98/211: In supercession of Government Notification No. ERTS(T) 64/98/88 dated 12.4.2001 and in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (5) of section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, the Governor of Meghalaya being satisfied that it is necessary to do so in the public interest, is pleased to direct that no tax under this Act shall be payable by any eligible industrial unit to whom an exemption certificate in the form of Certificate of Authorization has been granted by the Commissioner of Taxes with the prior approval of Taxation Department in respect of sale of goods manufactured by such unit in the course of inter-State trade or commerce to a registered Dealer or the Government during the period of validity of the Certificate of Authorization subject to the condition that such sale to any person outside the State of Meghalaya is supported by proper documents of sales. This shall come into force with immediate effect. This shall come into force with immediate effect. Sd/- (B.K. Verma) Principal Secretary to the Government of Meghalaya, Excise, Registration, Taxation and Stamps Department." Section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 as amended in 2002 reads, thus: "(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, the State Government may on the fulfilment of the requirements laid down in sub-section (4) by the deader if it is satisfied that it is necessary so to do in public interest, by Notification in the Official Gazette and subject to such conditions as may be specified therein direct, - (a) that no tax under this Act shall be payable by any dealer having his place of business in the State in respect of the sales by him, in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, to a registered dealer from any such place of business of any such goods or classes of goods as may be specified in the Notification, or that the tax on such sales shall be calculated at such lower rates than those specified in sub­section (1) as may be mentioned in the Notification; (b) That in respect of all sales of goods or sales of such classes of goods as may be specified in the Notification, which are made, in the course of inter-State trade or commerce to a registered dealer by any dealer having his place of business in the State or by any class of such dealers as may be specified in the Notification to any person or such class of persons as may be specified in the Notification, no tax under this Act shall be payable or the tax on such sales shall be calculated at such lower rates than those specified in sub-section (1) as may be mentioned in the Notification." It may also be profitable to refer to the provisions of section 8(5) of the Central Sales Act, 1956 prior to its amendment in 2002, which are in the following terms: "5. Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, the State Government may, if it is satisfied that it is necessary so to do in the public interest, by Notification in the Official Gazette, and subject to such conditions as may be specified therein direct - (a) that no tax under this Act shall be payable by any dealer having his place of business in the State in respect of the sales by him, in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, from any such place of business of any such goods or classes of goods as may be specified in the Notification, or that the tax on such sales shall be calculated at such lower rates than those specified in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) as may be mentioned in the Notification; (b) that in respect of all sales of goods as may be specified in the Notification, which are made, in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, by any dealer having his place of business in the State or by any class of such dealers as may be specified in the Notification no tax under this Act shall be payable or the tax on such sales shall be calculated at such lower rates than those specified in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) as may be mentioned in the Notification." 13. Before proceeding further, it may be noted that no dispute has been raised by the State-respondents that the petitioner has acted upon the assurance held out by them of sales tax exemption under the Meghalaya Industrial Policy, 1997, which was implemented by them by notifying the Meghalaya Industries (Sales Tax Exemption) Schemes, 2001 and the Notification dated 12.4.2001 issued under the unamended section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, has accordingly set up the industry in question and has also in the process invested a huge amount of money towards this end. There is also no dispute that the petitioner has fulfilled all the requirements stipulated for availing of the benefits of the tax exemption and has, in fact, availed of such benefits till the date of issuing the impugned Notification. The question which falls for determination in this writ petition is whether the impugned Notification can be validly issued under the newly amended section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The question which falls for determination in this writ petition is whether the impugned Notification can be validly issued under the newly amended section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The effect of the legislative change introduced by the amending Act of 2002 is that on the coming into force thereof, the power of the States to grant exemption of sales tax for sale of goods in the course of inter-State trade or commerce came to be restricted to the sale by the dealer to a registered dealer. In other words, if such goods are not sold to a registered dealer, the States are deprived of their power to grant the tax exemption. However, prior to the coming into force of 2002 amendment, no such restriction was placed upon the power of the States to grant the sales tax exemption irrespective of whether the sale of goods by the dealer in the course of inter-State trade or commerce was upon a registered dealer or not. A closer scrutiny of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 as amended in 2002 will reveal that the amendment came into force only with effect from 11.5.2002 and cannot, therefore, have any retrospective effect. The Union Parliament and the State Legislatures, undoubtedly, have plenary powers of legislation within the fields assigned to them and subject to certain constitutional and judicially recognized restrictions can legislate prospectively as well as retrospectively. It is a cardinal principal of construction that every statute is prima facie prospective in operation unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective effect. This rule in general is applicable where the object of the statute is to affect vested rights or to impose new burdens or to impair existing obligations. Unless there are words in the statute sufficient to show the intention of Legislature to affect the existing rights, it is deemed to be prospective only 'nova constitution futuris forman imponere debet non-praeteritis' (a new law ought to regulate what is to follow, not the past). See G.P. Singh's Principles of Statutory Interpretation, 9th edn. at pp. 437-38. There is nothing to indicate that the newly amended section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 has any retrospective effect: the newly amended provision is evidently prospective in operation. See G.P. Singh's Principles of Statutory Interpretation, 9th edn. at pp. 437-38. There is nothing to indicate that the newly amended section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 has any retrospective effect: the newly amended provision is evidently prospective in operation. Therefore, the contention of the State-respondents that the Notification dated 12.4.2001 is in conflict with the newly amended section 8(5) and that the impugned Notification was issued on 5.9.2005 in conformity with the amended provision, does not hold water. In my judgment, the Notification dated 12.4.2001 is not contrary to law when the same was issued. 14. This leads me to consider the question of applying the doctrine of promissory estoppel to the facts of this case. The doctrine is succinctly enunciated by the Apex Court in Kasinka Trading v. Union of India, (1995) 1 SCC 274 at paragraphs 11 and 12 of the judgment, which read, thus: "11. The doctrine of promissory or equitable estoppel is well-established in the administrative law of the country. To put it simply, the doctrine represents a principle evolved by equity to avoid injustice. The basis of the doctrine is that where a party has by his word or conduct, which is intended to create legal relations or effect a legal relationship to arise in the future, knowing as well as intending that the representation, or assurance or a promise would be acted upon by the other party, the promise, assurance or representation should be binding on the party making it and that party should be permitted to go back upon it, if it would be inequitable to allow him to do so, having regard to the dealings, which have taken place or are intended to take place between the parties. 12. It has been settled by this court that the doctrine of promissory estoppel is applicable against the Government also particularly where it is necessary to prevent fraud or manifest injustice. The doctrine, however, cannot be pressed into aid to compel the Government or the public authority 'to carry out a representation or promise which is contrary to law or which was outside the authority or power of the officer of the Government or of the public authority to make'. The doctrine, however, cannot be pressed into aid to compel the Government or the public authority 'to carry out a representation or promise which is contrary to law or which was outside the authority or power of the officer of the Government or of the public authority to make'. There is preponderance of opinion that to invoke the doctrine of promissory estoppel clear, sound and positive foundation must be laid in the petition itself by the party invoking the doctrine and that bald expression, without any supporting material, to the effect that the doctrine is attracted because the party invoking the doctrine has altered its position relying on the assurance of the Government would not be sufficient to press into aid the doctrine. In our opinion, the doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be invoked in the abstract and the courts are bound t,o consider, all aspects including the result sought to be achieved and the public good at large, because while considering the applicability of tl IB doctrine, the courts have to do equity and the fundamental principles of equity must forever be present to the mind of the court, while considering the applicability of the doctrine. The doctrine must yield when the equity so demands if it can be shown having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case that it would be inequitable to hold the Government or the public authority to its promise, assurance or representation." The following principles can be deduced from the observations of the Apex Court extracted in the foregoing for he application of the doctrine of promissory estoppel: (a) a party must make an equivocal promise, assurance or representation by word or conduct to the other party (b) the representation was intended to create legal relations or affect the legal relationship, to arise in future; (c) a clear foundation has to be laid in the writ petition, with supporting documents; (d) it has to be shown that the party invoking the doctrine has altered its position relying on the promise; (e) it is possible for the Government to resile from its promise when public interest would be prejudiced if the Government were required to carry out its promise; (f) the doctrine cannot be pressed into service to compel the Government or public authority to carry out the representation or promise which is contrary to law or which was outside the authority or power of the officer of the Government or of the public authority to make; (g) the court will not apply the doctrine in the abstract. 15. As found by me earlier, the petitioner acting upon the unequivocal assurance made by the State-respondents under the Meghalaya Industrial Policy, 1997 set up a plant for production of Bitumen Emulsion and Allied Modified Bituminous Products at Bymihat by investing a project cost to the order of Rs. 268.71 lakh. The representation was obviously intended to create legal relationship between the petitioner and the State-respondents. The Notification dated 12.4.2001 allowing the tax exemption in respect of sales of goods in the course of inter-State trade or commerce not necessarily to a registered dealer did not fall foul of section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 prior to its amendment, which came into force only with effect from 11.5.2002: the Notification dated 12.4.2001 is, therefore, not contrary to law. No evidence is shown nor is such a plea made by the State-respondents that public interest would be prejudiced if they are required to carry out the promise. No evidence is shown nor is such a plea made by the State-respondents that public interest would be prejudiced if they are required to carry out the promise. Neither is it the case of the State-respondents that the representation was made outside the authority or power of its officials to make. Under the circumstances, I have no alternative but to hold that the State-respondents are barred by the doctrine of promissory estoppel from issuing the impugned Notification, which, ex facie, is bad in law. The petitioner has, therefore, made out a clear case for the application of the doctrine of promissory estoppel to the facts of this case warranting the interference of this court. 16. Resultantly, this writ petition succeeds. The impugned Notification dated 5.9.2005 (Annexure G), the Assessment Order dated 15.2.2007 (Annexure E) and the Notice of Demand dated 20.2.2007 (Annexure F) emanating therefrom cannot stand and are hereby quashed. Let a writ of Mandamus issue forbearing the State-respondents from recovering a sum of Rs. 98,085 from the petitioner in terms of the impugned demand notice. However, on the facts and circumstances of this case, the parties are directed to bear their respective costs. WP(C)No.111(SH)2007 17. Coming now to the facts in WP(C) No.111(SH) of 2007 the petitioner-company, also encouraged by and acting upon the representation/assurance/promise held out by the State-respondents in the Industrial Policy, 1997 decided to set up a plant for production of color coated cold forming corrugated sheet, galvanized corrugated (GC) sheets and ridges, gutters, valleys. Towards this end, it undertook the following activities: "8. (a) The Petitioner Company for the purpose of setting up its industry took a plot of land on rent for 10 years measuring 24,000 sq. ft at Village -Mawsamai, 10th Mile, GS Road, District - Ri-bhoi, Meghalaya. After taking effective possession of the said plot of land, the Petitioner Company had set up its industry. (b) The Petitioner Company thereafter registered itself with the appropriate authority, i.e., before the respondent No.4. (c) The Petitioner Company obtained its provisional registration from the respondent No.4. (d) A project report was prepared for the purpose of setting up the aforementioned industry by M/s. Bose and Co. (e) For the purpose of setting up the industry, The Petitioner Company obtained an amount of Rs. 146.82 lakh from the promoters contribution as initial investment as on 31.3.2005. (d) A project report was prepared for the purpose of setting up the aforementioned industry by M/s. Bose and Co. (e) For the purpose of setting up the industry, The Petitioner Company obtained an amount of Rs. 146.82 lakh from the promoters contribution as initial investment as on 31.3.2005. (f) The working capital of the Petitioner Company was also sanctioned by UCO Bank, Guwahati on 29.8.2005. (g) The Petitioner Company also obtained the relevant approvals and clearance from the appropriate authorities, namely: (i) Pollution Control Board (Consent to Operate) vide letter No. MPCB/TB-64-2004/2004-2005/12 dated 10.3.2005. (ii) Eligibility Certificate the Meghalaya Industrial Corporation Limited bearing Registration No.368/RB-087 dated 29.5.2006. (iii) Consent from the Meghalaya State Electricity Board for installation of 100 KVA DG Set vide letter No IEL/111/16/2004-05/334 dated 24.1.2005. (h) The petitioner-company started its commercial production on 12.12.2004." 18. It is stated by the petitioner that for the purpose of setting up the said industry, it has spent huge amounts of money and altered its position on the basis of the aforesaid representation/promise or assurance made by the State-respondents. The particulars of the investments made by it are as under: PROJECT COSTS 81. No. Particulars Amount in rupees (lakh) Up to 31.3.2005 Amount in rupees (lakh) Up to 31.3.2006 1. Land and site development 1.22 1.22 2. Building and Civil Works 15.30 28.85 3. Plant and Machinery and Utility installation 75.20 93.76 4. Miscellaneous fixed assets 1.06 10.76 5. Preliminary and pre-operative expenses 1.57 1.39 6. Margin money for working capital 52.47 85.96 Total 146.82 221.94 19. The petitioner started its commercial production on 12.12.2004. It is, thus, contended by the petitioner that the State-respondents, contrary to the promise held out by them, issued the impugned Notification dated 5.9.2005 withdrawing/setting at naught the tax exemption in respect of sale of goods made by it in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. Following the impugned Notification, the respondent No.5 passed the assessment order dated 15.2.2007 assessing the turnover aggregate of the sale price in respect of goods sold in the course of inter-State trade or commerce for the period from 5.9.2005 to 30.9.2005 at Rs. 1,38,04,253 and accordingly determined the tax payable of such turnover at Rs. 5,52,170. However, for the period from 1.4.2005 to 4.9.2005, the tax so payable in respect of the same transactions was assessed as nil. 1,38,04,253 and accordingly determined the tax payable of such turnover at Rs. 5,52,170. However, for the period from 1.4.2005 to 4.9.2005, the tax so payable in respect of the same transactions was assessed as nil. In pursuance of this assessment order, a Demand Notice dated 19.2.2007 was issued directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 5,52,170 on or before 19.3.2007 to the Treasury Officer/Sub-Treasury Officer at Nongpoh, failing which penalty would be imposed and a certificate forwarded to the Collector for recovery of the whole amount as an arrear of land revenues. As in WP(C) No. 113(SH) of 2007, the State-respondents do not dispute the case of the petitioner that it acted upon the promise held out in the Industrial Policy, 1997 set up the industry, invested a huge of amount of money and has in the process altered its position. The only contention raised by them is that the impugned Notification is issued in conformity with the amended provisions of section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 thereby rendering the earlier Notification dated 12.4.2001 illegal. In my opinion, the legal point raised by the State-respondents is squarely covered by my decision in WP(C) No.113(SH) of 2007. In the result, this writ petition will be governed by my decision in WP(C) No. 113(SH) of 2007. Consequently, this writ petition also succeeds. The impugned Notification dated 5.9.2005 is liable to be quashed, which I hereby do. The impugned assessment order dated 15.2.2007 and the demand notice dated 19.2.2007 issued in terms of the impugned Notification dated 5.9.2007 cannot also be allowed to stand and are, accordingly, set aside. Let a writ of mandamus issue directing the State-respondents not to give effect to the impugned assessment order and the demand notice. The parties are, however, directed to bear their respective costs.