<?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>1983 (8) TMI 246 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154148</link>
    <description>An industrial unit that completed the required effective steps under a 1979 incentive scheme acquired an enforceable right to an eligibility certificate where it had acted on Government representations and altered its position by investing in the project. The Court applied promissory estoppel against executive action, holding that the scheme and notifications were public promises capable of enforcement even though the scheme was not statutory. Clause 4.6 was read as requiring an eligibility certificate before incentives could be claimed, not as conferring unfettered discretion to refuse certification once the scheme conditions were satisfied. Arbitrary denial of the certificate was held amenable to judicial review under Article 226, and the petitioners were entitled to a writ directing issuance of the certificate.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 18 Aug 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 08 Aug 2013 18:58:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=171181" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1983 (8) TMI 246 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154148</link>
      <description>An industrial unit that completed the required effective steps under a 1979 incentive scheme acquired an enforceable right to an eligibility certificate where it had acted on Government representations and altered its position by investing in the project. The Court applied promissory estoppel against executive action, holding that the scheme and notifications were public promises capable of enforcement even though the scheme was not statutory. Clause 4.6 was read as requiring an eligibility certificate before incentives could be claimed, not as conferring unfettered discretion to refuse certification once the scheme conditions were satisfied. Arbitrary denial of the certificate was held amenable to judicial review under Article 226, and the petitioners were entitled to a writ directing issuance of the certificate.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 18 Aug 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154148</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>