<?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>1988 (7) TMI 384 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155807</link>
    <description>Promissory estoppel prevented the State from withdrawing a sales tax exemption for industrial units that had been established and had acted on an earlier exemption notification. The earlier notification granted qualifying tiny rural industrial units exemption for a fixed period, and the petitioners had set up their units and obtained exemption certificates while it was in force. A later notification introduced a turnover limit and curtailed the concession, but the HC held that it could operate only prospectively for units established after its commencement. The later notification therefore did not apply to the petitioners, who remained entitled to exemption on their entire turnover for the stipulated period under the earlier notification.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 25 Jul 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 07 Sep 2013 18:21:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=172834" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (7) TMI 384 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155807</link>
      <description>Promissory estoppel prevented the State from withdrawing a sales tax exemption for industrial units that had been established and had acted on an earlier exemption notification. The earlier notification granted qualifying tiny rural industrial units exemption for a fixed period, and the petitioners had set up their units and obtained exemption certificates while it was in force. A later notification introduced a turnover limit and curtailed the concession, but the HC held that it could operate only prospectively for units established after its commencement. The later notification therefore did not apply to the petitioners, who remained entitled to exemption on their entire turnover for the stipulated period under the earlier notification.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 25 Jul 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155807</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>