<?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>1996 (1) TMI 387 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158255</link>
    <description>Exemption from purchase tax under a notification issued under section 4-B of the Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Act, 1948 was held to depend on the notification itself, not on the recognition certificate held by the dealers. A later notification could validly supersede the earlier exemption and withdraw the concession under the power to rescind statutory instruments read with the enabling provisions, so the exemption ceased when the later notification came into force. The court also held that the grant of exemption was only a fiscal concession and that no factual basis for promissory estoppel was made out. The challenge failed and the writ petitions were dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 17 Jan 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 Oct 2013 17:22:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=331509" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (1) TMI 387 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158255</link>
      <description>Exemption from purchase tax under a notification issued under section 4-B of the Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Act, 1948 was held to depend on the notification itself, not on the recognition certificate held by the dealers. A later notification could validly supersede the earlier exemption and withdraw the concession under the power to rescind statutory instruments read with the enabling provisions, so the exemption ceased when the later notification came into force. The court also held that the grant of exemption was only a fiscal concession and that no factual basis for promissory estoppel was made out. The challenge failed and the writ petitions were dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Jan 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158255</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>