Political contribution deductions require assessee-specific proof before cash-back allegations can justify disallowance or unexplained-money additions...
HC held that the impugned retrospective executive withdrawal of a state-granted subsidy was without lawful sanction and thereby unenforceable; the affected assessee(s) are entitled to the substantive benefit conferred by the Government Orders, including the full subsidy equivalent to purchase tax on sugarcane for the prescribed period. The doctrine of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation was considered, with the court finding no estoppel where no prior ministerial assurance existed, but recognizing that selective withdrawals founded on higher judicial pronouncements may be sustainable. The State's abrupt, unexplained retroactive rescission was impermissible; the petition was dismissed.
HC held that the impugned retrospective executive withdrawal of a state-granted subsidy was without lawful sanction and thereby unenforceable; the affected assessee(s) are entitled to the substantive benefit conferred by the Government Orders, including the full subsidy equivalent to purchase tax on sugarcane for the prescribed period. The doctrine of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation was considered, with the court finding no estoppel where no prior ministerial assurance existed, but recognizing that selective withdrawals founded on higher judicial pronouncements may be sustainable. The State's abrupt, unexplained retroactive rescission was impermissible; the petition was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
Join Channel 
