https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157564 A claim for eligibility certificate and tax exemption under the Bengal Sales Tax Rules had to comply with the prescribed application time-limit under rule 3(66); an application made long after the relevant date was treated as falling under rule 3(66a), not rule 3(66). The record showed that the certificate was granted under rule 3(66a), and the broader exemption claim was rejected. The doctrine of promissory estoppel also required proof of reliance and alteration of position on the basis of a promise, which was absent here. In the absence of any factual foundation for such reliance, the plea failed and the disallowance of the wider tax holiday claim was sustained. en-us Thu, 20 Dec 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 07 Oct 2013 18:40:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157564 A claim for eligibility certificate and tax exemption under the Bengal Sales Tax Rules had to comply with the prescribed application time-limit under rule 3(66); an application made long after the relevant date was treated as falling under rule 3(66a), not rule 3(66). The record showed that the certificate was granted under rule 3(66a), and the broader exemption claim was rejected. The doctrine of promissory estoppel also required proof of reliance and alteration of position on the basis of a promise, which was absent here. In the absence of any factual foundation for such reliance, the plea failed and the disallowance of the wider tax holiday claim was sustained. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 20 Dec 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157564