https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155507 A retrospective sales tax notification could not impose a new restriction that denied an exemption when finished goods were sold outside the State, because the assessee had already set up the industrial unit and altered its position under the earlier unrestricted assurance. The delegated authority was held incapable of withdrawing or curtailing the promised benefit in a manner inconsistent with that assurance, and promissory estoppel applied. The amended notification and the consequential additional tax demand were therefore not sustainable, and the exemption benefit for the promised period was retained. en-us Tue, 16 Dec 1986 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 04 Sep 2013 18:46:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155507 A retrospective sales tax notification could not impose a new restriction that denied an exemption when finished goods were sold outside the State, because the assessee had already set up the industrial unit and altered its position under the earlier unrestricted assurance. The delegated authority was held incapable of withdrawing or curtailing the promised benefit in a manner inconsistent with that assurance, and promissory estoppel applied. The amended notification and the consequential additional tax demand were therefore not sustainable, and the exemption benefit for the promised period was retained. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 16 Dec 1986 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155507