https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210667 An amended incentive scheme for cement units created a protected entitlement to enhanced subsidy once the beneficiary had exercised the option, completed the prescribed investment, commenced production and received entitlement certificates while the scheme remained in force. The later deletion of the enabling clauses and subsequent clarification could not retrospectively withdraw that vested benefit; promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation applied because the State had induced investment through a specific assurance. Revisional interference was also invalid because the Screening Committee's grant was not shown to be erroneous or prejudicial to State revenue, so the revisional power could not be used merely to reverse a valid benefit after a policy change. en-us Tue, 11 Oct 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 23 Sep 2014 16:40:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210667 An amended incentive scheme for cement units created a protected entitlement to enhanced subsidy once the beneficiary had exercised the option, completed the prescribed investment, commenced production and received entitlement certificates while the scheme remained in force. The later deletion of the enabling clauses and subsequent clarification could not retrospectively withdraw that vested benefit; promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation applied because the State had induced investment through a specific assurance. Revisional interference was also invalid because the Screening Committee's grant was not shown to be erroneous or prejudicial to State revenue, so the revisional power could not be used merely to reverse a valid benefit after a policy change. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 11 Oct 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210667