UNION OF INDIA & Ors. v. M/S UNICORN INDUSTRIES

1.3 The legislative policy as reflected in Section 154 of the Finance Act, 2003 was to withdraw the exemption granted to the manufacturers of cigarettes as well as pan masala with tobacco and that too with retrospective effect. Apart from the fact that, it is a common knowledge that tobacco is highly hazardous, the legislative intent was also unambiguous. In these circumstances, the finding of the High Court that the withdrawal of exemption for tobacco products was not in the public interest, to say the least is shocking. The approach of the Appellate Bench of the High Court was totally unsustainable. The withdrawal of the exemption to the pan masala with tobacco and pan masala sans tobacco is in the larger public interest. As such, the doctrine of promissory estoppel could not have been invoked in the present matter. The State could not be compelled to continue the exemption, though it was satisfied that it was not in the public interest to do so. The larger public interest would outweigh an individual loss, if any. The appeals are allowed. The judgments and orders passed by the Appellate Bench of the Gauhati High Court dated 20.04.2016 and 25.05.2016 are quashed and set aside. The Order passed by the Single Judge dated 10.12.2010 dismissing the writ petitions is upheld. [Paras 35, 36 and 39][292- A-D, F] Kasinka Trading v. Union of India (1995) 1 SCC 274 : [1994] 4 Suppl. SCR 448; STO v. Shree Durga Oil Mills (1998) 1 SCC 572 : [1997] 6 Suppl. SCR 488; Shrijee Sales Corpn. v. Union of India (1997) 3 SCC 398 : [1996] 10 Suppl. SCR 888; State of Rajasthan v. Mahaveer Oil Industries (1999) 4 SCC 357 : [1999] 2 SCR 798; Shree Sidhbali Steels Ltd. v. State of U.P. (2011) 3 SCC 193 : [2011] 3 SCR 134; DG of Foreign Trade v. Kanak Exports (2016) 2 SCC 226 : [2015] 15 SCR 287 – relied on.