<?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 (12) TMI 302 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157982</link>
    <description>G.O. Ms. No. 500 was read as granting new industries in specified backward taluks a full five-year sales tax waiver, while limiting existing industries to deferment or waiver only on sales tax attributable to expansion or diversification capacity. G.O. Ms. No. 92 was treated as a later restriction operating prospectively, so it could not curtail benefits already accrued to units set up and commissioned before its publication. Promissory estoppel was applied against the State because industries had altered their position in reliance on the earlier incentive scheme, and the later notification could not defeat that reliance.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 16 Dec 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 Oct 2013 16:31:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=320488" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (12) TMI 302 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157982</link>
      <description>G.O. Ms. No. 500 was read as granting new industries in specified backward taluks a full five-year sales tax waiver, while limiting existing industries to deferment or waiver only on sales tax attributable to expansion or diversification capacity. G.O. Ms. No. 92 was treated as a later restriction operating prospectively, so it could not curtail benefits already accrued to units set up and commissioned before its publication. Promissory estoppel was applied against the State because industries had altered their position in reliance on the earlier incentive scheme, and the later notification could not defeat that reliance.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 Dec 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157982</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>