V.K. Gupta, CJ.
1. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a group of entrepreneurs having their business activities and bases in the State of Bihar has approached this Court for issuance of mandamus or for grant of any other appropriate relief with respect to the continuance of exemption from the payment of sales tax on the purchase of raw material, even though now the purchase of raw material is by way of an inter-State sale transaction. Reliance is placed upon S.O. 478 issued by the Government of Bihar on 22nd December, 1995 in terms of Section 7(3)(b) of Bihar Finance Act, 1981.
2. The petitioners, except petitioner No. 5, have their business activities in the State of Bihar, where they carry their manufacturing operations. Till 14th November, 2000, the petitioners had no difficulty in availing of the benefits under S.O. 478 because till that date, the territories now forming part of the Jharkhand State were included in the erstwhile State of Bihar, but with effect from 15th November, 2000 byvirtue of Section 3 of Bihar Re-organization Act, 2000, the State of Jharkhand came into existence. The coming into existence of the State of Jharkhand with effect from 15th November, 2000 gave rise to a peculiar problem as the petitioners are concerned because, even though prior to 15th November, 2000, the purchases of raw material effected by the petitioners having their Units in Bihar were made from within the territories of one State, namely, the then State of Bihar, after 15th November, 2000, the purchases of raw material effected by the petitioners were made in the territories now comprising in the State of Jharkhand, even though the raw material was meant for being sent to the State of Bihar for consumption in the Units of the petitioners in Bihar State. As long as the raw material was being purchases and the same was being consumed within the same, State, within one State, the exemption Notification being S.O. 478 was applicable and could be invoked because it was issued by the same State Government in which the raw material was being purchased and where the same was consumed for production of finished products. Before 15th November, 2000, therefore, the purchase of raw material was an event of inter-State sale. However, after 15th November, 2000, the situation turned topsy-turvy and drastically converted the event and incidence of sale from intra-State sale to inter-State sale inasmuch as the raw material was purchased in the State of Jharkhand and the same was being sent to the State of Bihar for use and consumption. The exemption Notification S.O. 478, therefore, having been issued in terms of Section 7(3)(b) of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981, could not be invoked or made applicable with respect to inter-State sale because the inter-State sale is governed and regulated by the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The movement of goods being, therefore, of inter-State in nature, 1981 Act did not govern the sale transactions inasmuch as 1981 Act governs only the transactions in which the goods are sold for inter-State sale.
3. It may be unfortunate for the petitioners, but on account of the aforesaidunforeseen situation and unconceivable circumstance, the unexpected event of the new State coming into being, the benefits flowing from S.O. 478, even though the same has been adopted by the Government of Jharkhand, cannot now be given effect to in so far as the petitioners are concerned, because the exemption as contemplated in S.O. 478 being under Section 7(3)(b) of 1981 Act (which relates to only inter-State sale), the petitioners cannot get any relief. As already observed with respect to the event of inter-State sale, the provisions of Central Sales Tax Act are attracted under which no exemption Notification has been issued by the appropriate Government.
4. Mr. S. Pal, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners also contended that the policy resolution of 1995 declaring that the State of Bihar would grant exemption on the purchase of raw material should be construed as falling within the definition of 'law' as occurring in Section 2 of Bihar Re-organization Act, 2000 (in short, Act) and read with the provisions contained in Sections 84 and 86 of the Act and by invoking the doctrine of promissory estoppels, in terms of Section 86 Of the Act, we should declare the aforesaid policy resolution of 1995 as 'law' and hold it as having a binding effect vis-a-vis Government of Jharkhand qua the petitioners, and, therefore, in terms of Section 8(5) of Central Sales Tax Act, the Government of Jharkhand should issue a statutory Notification exempting the goods sold by the dealer, i.e. the Central Coalfields Ltd, (in the present case) from payment of sales tax for their onward movement to the State of Bihar. After careful consideration of the aforesaid contention of the learned Senior Counsel, and on examination of all relevant aspects of the matter, we find ourselves unable to agree with the aforesaid submission. On the question of enforceability of 1995 policy resolution, our view is that even in 1995 itself, when undivided State of Bihar was in existence, the State Government's intention was to grant incentive with respect to the payment of Sales Tax under the Bihar Finance Act, 1981. 1995 policy resolution did not contain orcarry any explicit or implied indication that the State Government intended to grant any exemption with respect to the transaction in the nature of inter-State sale of goods. In other words, what the then Government of Bihar (in 1995} promised in the aforesaid 1995 policy resolution was that in so far as the inter-State sale is concerned, there would be exemption on payment of sales tax for the purchase of raw material, but in so far as the inter-State sale is concerned, no such exemption intention could be gathered or inferred from 1995 policy resolution nor was it permissible under Bihar Finance Act, 1981. This apart, we have also very strong doubts whether the 1995 policy resolution by itself can be termed to be 'law' either within the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of the Act or even otherwise. We are saying so, because on the touch-stone of Section 84 read with Section 86 of the Act, without the issuance of the requisite statutory Notification (under the provisions of Bihar Finance Act. 1981), the policy resolution of 1995 by itself was not even enforceable or implementable. What was enforceable and implementable was the statutory Notification. The policy resolution actually was translated into the statutory Notification by the issuance of S.O. 478. The policy resolution of 1995 thus culminated into the merged with the statutory Notification being S.O. 478 and once the statutory Notification was issued, the policy resolution paled into oblivion and got eclipsed totally. What, therefore is enforceable in law in terms of Section 84 of the Act read with Section 86 is the statutory Notification being S.O. 478 and the statutory Notification providing only for the exemption with respect to such sale transactions which have inter-State connotation, with respect to inter-State sales, the exemption cannot be claimed or granted in favour of the petitioners.
5. Based on the aforesaid observations, therefore, we have no hesitation in declining to grant any relief to the petitioners. The petition is accordingly dismissed, but without any orders as to costs.