<?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 (9) TMI 643 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160245</link>
    <description>An exemption notification under a tax-relief provision may grant or withdraw relief as a matter of policy, and the plea of promissory estoppel failed because no enforceable promise of continuation was shown. The notification could not, however, be used to create a new charging liability or shift tax burden onto re-rolling mills for consignment or branch transfers, as that was inconsistent with the statutory scheme and the rules governing declared goods; that burden-shifting clause was struck down. Tube manufacturers were held outside the intended class of steel re-rolling mills and could not claim the concession. The territorial restriction confining the benefit to mills in Tamil Nadu was discriminatory and was directed to be deleted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 23 Sep 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 12 Dec 2013 17:47:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=339065" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (9) TMI 643 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160245</link>
      <description>An exemption notification under a tax-relief provision may grant or withdraw relief as a matter of policy, and the plea of promissory estoppel failed because no enforceable promise of continuation was shown. The notification could not, however, be used to create a new charging liability or shift tax burden onto re-rolling mills for consignment or branch transfers, as that was inconsistent with the statutory scheme and the rules governing declared goods; that burden-shifting clause was struck down. Tube manufacturers were held outside the intended class of steel re-rolling mills and could not claim the concession. The territorial restriction confining the benefit to mills in Tamil Nadu was discriminatory and was directed to be deleted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Sep 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160245</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>