JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Ajit Singh, J. By this petition, the petitioner has prayed for declaring Clause 12 of the Assam Industries (Sales Tax Concessions) Scheme, 1995 (in short “Scheme, 1995”) as ultra vires to the Industrial Policy of Assam, 1991. The petitioner has also prayed for the refund of sales tax amounting to Rs.73,672.61/- collected from it. 2. According to the petitioner, it is a partnership firm and engaged in the business of manufacturing/processing of tea. 3. In the year 1991, the State Government introduced an Industrial Policy aiming to increase economy and industrial growth in the State. One of the incentives in the Policy was that sales tax will be exempted on purchase of raw material and sales of finished products for a period of 7 years. In pursuance of the said policy, the State enacted the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 (in short “Act, 1993”) and exercising the powers conferred under the Act, 1993, the State Government by notification in the official gazette framed Assam Industries (Sales Tax Concessions) Scheme, 1995 ( in short “Scheme, 1995”). By virtue of the provisions of the Act and Scheme, new industries, subject to certain conditions, were to be given exemption from payment of sales tax, but the exemption was not to be given in respect of certain commodities. And one such commodity was ‘tea’. The grievance of the petitioner is that inspired by the Industrial Policy of Assam, 1991, it had set up a small scale industrial unit in the year 1994-95 by investing huge amount of money under a belief of getting exemption of sales tax, but the respondents denied the benefit of exemption and have collected sales tax of Rs.73,672.61/- during the period from 1.4.2000 to 31.3.2001 on the purchase of tea. It is in this background, the petitioner has prayed for a direction against the respondents to refund the amount of sales tax, so collected, and also to declare Clause 12 of the Scheme, 1995, which does not include ‘tea’ within the meaning of raw material under the Industrial Policy of 1991, as ultra vires. 4. In reply, the respondents have defended their action of collecting sales tax on the ground that ‘tea’ was never exempted from payment of sales tax and the petitioner was merely blending and packaging of tea and never did manufacturing activity. 4. In reply, the respondents have defended their action of collecting sales tax on the ground that ‘tea’ was never exempted from payment of sales tax and the petitioner was merely blending and packaging of tea and never did manufacturing activity. The respondents have also averred that in the Industrial Policy of Assam, 1991, it was nowhere stated that industries engaged in the manufacturing, blending or packaging of tea will be exempted from payment of sales tax. 5. After hearing the respective counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the petition deserves to be dismissed. Admittedly, Industrial Policy of Assam, 1991, nowhere says that industries involved in the manufacturing, processing, blending or packaging of tea will be exempted from payment of sales tax. Therefore, the petitioner’s plea of promissory estoppel is wholly unacceptable. Also exercising powers under the Act, 1993, the State Government notified the Scheme, 1995, of which, Clause 12 deals with raw material. It reads as under:- “Clause 12: Raw Material: Raw Material means any material or commodity capable of being used for manufacture of any other product in an eligible industrial unit situated within the State of Assam, such raw material having been permitted in the eligibility Certificate of authorization for use as raw material in the manufacture of goods for sale by this unit but shall not include the following commodities for the purpose of any benefit under this schedule: Tea Liquified Petroleum Gas Ply Wood and Veneer Petroleum, Diesel Oil & Lubricants Timber in all forms and Cement.” 6. The above quoted Clause 12 clearly reveals that ‘tea’ is not included in raw material. Therefore, the petitioner was apparently never entitled for exemption in respect of tea as a raw material for purchase as well as sale of tea. It is also relevant to note that validity of an identical provision Rule 2(f) of the Assam Industries (Sales Tax Concessions) Rules, 1988, which also did not include ‘tea’ as raw material (in respect of which exemption from payment of sales tax could be granted), was challenged in CR No.4162/1991 before this High Court and vide order dated 17.8.1998 Rule 2(f) has already been held as legal and valid while rejecting the plea of promissory estoppel raised therein. Even otherwise also, it is well settled principle of law that there cannot be any estoppel against law. Even otherwise also, it is well settled principle of law that there cannot be any estoppel against law. When there is a statutory provision to the effect that on tea being used as raw material, no tax exemption would be available; none can claim exemption in respect of sales tax payable on purchase or sale of tea. It is true that eligibility certificate was issued to the petitioner under the Industrial Policy of Assam, 1991 and also a certificate of authorization dated 14.2.1997, but the same being contrary to Clause 12 of the statutory scheme, 1995, the petitioner cannot claim any benefit. 7. For these reasons, the petition is dismissed, but without any order as to costs.