<?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 (3) TMI 443 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156397</link>
    <description>A retrospective fiscal enactment limiting interest-free sales tax loans to a fixed ceiling was upheld as a valid legislative measure. The Court held that the ceiling was supported by objective financial and policy considerations, did not infringe Article 14 or Article 19(1)(g), and was not an unreasonable restriction on trade or business. It also held that promissory estoppel could not override a valid statute, so earlier executive assurances could not compel continuation of the incentive. A further challenge based on alleged discrimination failed because the later incentive scheme was confined to specified backward districts and no hostile discrimination was established.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 10 Mar 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 Oct 2013 15:54:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=173424" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (3) TMI 443 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156397</link>
      <description>A retrospective fiscal enactment limiting interest-free sales tax loans to a fixed ceiling was upheld as a valid legislative measure. The Court held that the ceiling was supported by objective financial and policy considerations, did not infringe Article 14 or Article 19(1)(g), and was not an unreasonable restriction on trade or business. It also held that promissory estoppel could not override a valid statute, so earlier executive assurances could not compel continuation of the incentive. A further challenge based on alleged discrimination failed because the later incentive scheme was confined to specified backward districts and no hostile discrimination was established.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Mar 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156397</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>