<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2004 (9) TMI 381 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105380</link>
    <description>A fiscal exemption under an industrial incentive scheme was treated as a concession, not a vested right, so the State could validly clarify and modify the scheme prospectively through a corrigendum issued to remove ambiguity and align the text with the policy. Sick cement units could not claim the higher benefits reserved for a different class of units, and certification of an application as complete did not freeze the rate, period or quantum of exemption absent promissory estoppel. The State was also entitled to recover differential sales tax for the period governed by the modified scheme, subject to limited protection for benefits already enjoyed up to the specified date and waiver of interest or penalty on timely payment of the principal differential amount.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Sep 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Nov 2015 13:23:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=142418" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (9) TMI 381 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105380</link>
      <description>A fiscal exemption under an industrial incentive scheme was treated as a concession, not a vested right, so the State could validly clarify and modify the scheme prospectively through a corrigendum issued to remove ambiguity and align the text with the policy. Sick cement units could not claim the higher benefits reserved for a different class of units, and certification of an application as complete did not freeze the rate, period or quantum of exemption absent promissory estoppel. The State was also entitled to recover differential sales tax for the period governed by the modified scheme, subject to limited protection for benefits already enjoyed up to the specified date and waiver of interest or penalty on timely payment of the principal differential amount.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Sep 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105380</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>