<?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>1998 (8) TMI 569 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159992</link>
    <description>An assessee claiming sales tax exemption under an industrial incentive scheme and eligibility certificates could not show a legally enforceable entitlement overriding the taxing statute. The Court reiterated that promissory estoppel is an equitable doctrine, but it cannot restrain the State from performing statutory duties, exercising lawful powers, or changing policy in public interest. It also cannot be used to compel an assurance that is unauthorised, ultra vires, or contrary to law. On the facts, the assessment and revisional orders disclosed no infirmity, so the exemption claim and the plea of promissory estoppel failed and the tax orders were sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 03 Aug 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 06 Dec 2013 15:27:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=338338" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (8) TMI 569 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159992</link>
      <description>An assessee claiming sales tax exemption under an industrial incentive scheme and eligibility certificates could not show a legally enforceable entitlement overriding the taxing statute. The Court reiterated that promissory estoppel is an equitable doctrine, but it cannot restrain the State from performing statutory duties, exercising lawful powers, or changing policy in public interest. It also cannot be used to compel an assurance that is unauthorised, ultra vires, or contrary to law. On the facts, the assessment and revisional orders disclosed no infirmity, so the exemption claim and the plea of promissory estoppel failed and the tax orders were sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 03 Aug 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159992</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>