<?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>1993 (8) TMI 280 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157755</link>
    <description>A notified Government Order granting small-scale industrial units a five-year sales tax holiday up to a ceiling of Rs. 35,00,000 could not be curtailed by a later Manual of Guidelines that dealt only with procedure. The later restriction limiting the concession to 100 per cent of fixed capital investment, and the District Committee orders based on it, were held inconsistent with the substantive promise already made. A notified concession can be altered only by another notified order issued with equal legal force and in the prescribed manner, and the promise was enforceable under promissory estoppel because the units had acted upon it.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Aug 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 10 Oct 2013 14:33:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=174778" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1993 (8) TMI 280 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157755</link>
      <description>A notified Government Order granting small-scale industrial units a five-year sales tax holiday up to a ceiling of Rs. 35,00,000 could not be curtailed by a later Manual of Guidelines that dealt only with procedure. The later restriction limiting the concession to 100 per cent of fixed capital investment, and the District Committee orders based on it, were held inconsistent with the substantive promise already made. A notified concession can be altered only by another notified order issued with equal legal force and in the prescribed manner, and the promise was enforceable under promissory estoppel because the units had acted upon it.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Aug 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157755</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>