<?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>1994 (3) TMI 359 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157463</link>
    <description>A general sales tax exemption granted by delegated legislative action may be withdrawn in public interest where the governing statute permits rescission. Promissory estoppel failed because the exemption was a general fiscal measure, not a clear promise to identified dealers, and it could not operate against legislative policy or in support of a claim contrary to law. Legitimate expectation also failed because continuation of a fiscal concession cannot override overriding public interest. The Government was held to have power to revoke the exemption, and no prior notice or hearing was required for legislative action. The challenge based on Articles 19(1)(g) and 300-A, and the plea of waiver, also failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 Mar 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 05 Oct 2013 17:26:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=174486" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (3) TMI 359 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157463</link>
      <description>A general sales tax exemption granted by delegated legislative action may be withdrawn in public interest where the governing statute permits rescission. Promissory estoppel failed because the exemption was a general fiscal measure, not a clear promise to identified dealers, and it could not operate against legislative policy or in support of a claim contrary to law. Legitimate expectation also failed because continuation of a fiscal concession cannot override overriding public interest. The Government was held to have power to revoke the exemption, and no prior notice or hearing was required for legislative action. The challenge based on Articles 19(1)(g) and 300-A, and the plea of waiver, also failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Mar 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157463</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>