https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157225 Industrial units that had taken effective steps, made substantial investments, and in some cases commenced production before the cut-off date under a sales tax incentive scheme could not be denied the promised benefit by a later amendment excluding oil extracting or manufacturing units. The schemes were held out as inducements for investment, and the affected units had materially altered their position in reliance on those representations. The principle applied was estoppel against the State's conduct, not estoppel against statute, so the midstream exclusion could not defeat accrued incentive benefits where installation and production had already occurred within the operative period. en-us Tue, 12 Jan 1993 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 01 Oct 2013 18:04:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157225 Industrial units that had taken effective steps, made substantial investments, and in some cases commenced production before the cut-off date under a sales tax incentive scheme could not be denied the promised benefit by a later amendment excluding oil extracting or manufacturing units. The schemes were held out as inducements for investment, and the affected units had materially altered their position in reliance on those representations. The principle applied was estoppel against the State's conduct, not estoppel against statute, so the midstream exclusion could not defeat accrued incentive benefits where installation and production had already occurred within the operative period. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 12 Jan 1993 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157225