https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=241775 A later incentive regime confined concessions to State sales tax and State excise duty, leaving Central Sales Tax exemption to separate notification, so a unit established after the earlier policy could not rely on promissory estoppel or legitimate expectation to claim such exemption. Parity with earlier exempted units was also unavailable because the date of establishment was a legally material distinction under the policy framework. The Court further noted that an efficacious statutory appeal existed under the Central Sales Tax regime and that the petitioner had already pursued review, making writ interference with the assessment, demand and recovery proceedings inappropriate under Article 226. en-us Mon, 29 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 15 Jul 2014 15:21:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=241775 A later incentive regime confined concessions to State sales tax and State excise duty, leaving Central Sales Tax exemption to separate notification, so a unit established after the earlier policy could not rely on promissory estoppel or legitimate expectation to claim such exemption. Parity with earlier exempted units was also unavailable because the date of establishment was a legally material distinction under the policy framework. The Court further noted that an efficacious statutory appeal existed under the Central Sales Tax regime and that the petitioner had already pursued review, making writ interference with the assessment, demand and recovery proceedings inappropriate under Article 226. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Mon, 29 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=241775