<?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>1992 (1) TMI 330 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157203</link>
    <description>Incentive resolutions granting purchase-tax relief to eligible new industrial units extended only to tax payable under the statutory scheme for which exemption notifications were issued. Their wording, policy history and administrative implementation did not represent that sugarcane purchases were exempt from purchase tax under the separate provision. Promissory estoppel requires a clear governmental representation and alteration of position in reliance on it; neither supported an extension of the exemption beyond its notified scope. Claims for exemption on sugarcane purchases under the separate purchase-tax provision therefore failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 18 Jan 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 01 Oct 2013 16:04:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=174228" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (1) TMI 330 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157203</link>
      <description>Incentive resolutions granting purchase-tax relief to eligible new industrial units extended only to tax payable under the statutory scheme for which exemption notifications were issued. Their wording, policy history and administrative implementation did not represent that sugarcane purchases were exempt from purchase tax under the separate provision. Promissory estoppel requires a clear governmental representation and alteration of position in reliance on it; neither supported an extension of the exemption beyond its notified scope. Claims for exemption on sugarcane purchases under the separate purchase-tax provision therefore failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 18 Jan 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157203</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>