<?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>2011 (2) TMI 7 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202118</link>
    <description>A fiscal exemption under a delegated incentive scheme may be withdrawn or limited prospectively in public interest, and promissory estoppel does not require the State to extend the concession beyond the valid terms of the amended policy where bona fide action is shown. The earlier judgment had left open only the quantum of exemption, and the Court held that the relevant amendment protected investments made up to the date the solvent extraction plant was included in the negative list. The quantified exemption fixed by the authorities was therefore consistent with the scheme, and the claim for exemption on the entire post-amendment investment was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 21 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 Mar 2017 17:21:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=175708" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (2) TMI 7 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202118</link>
      <description>A fiscal exemption under a delegated incentive scheme may be withdrawn or limited prospectively in public interest, and promissory estoppel does not require the State to extend the concession beyond the valid terms of the amended policy where bona fide action is shown. The earlier judgment had left open only the quantum of exemption, and the Court held that the relevant amendment protected investments made up to the date the solvent extraction plant was included in the negative list. The quantified exemption fixed by the authorities was therefore consistent with the scheme, and the claim for exemption on the entire post-amendment investment was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 21 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202118</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>