https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161379 The Rajasthan HC treated the 30 September 1999 notification as a substantive amendment, not a corrigendum, because it altered the tax incentive scheme and operated only on publication in the official gazette. It held that benefits under the unamended scheme vested when the application was complete, with the eligibility certificate relating back to that date, so a later prospective amendment could not curtail the accrued package absent express language. The Court also held that singling out sick cement units that had not previously availed exemption, while other sick units retained the graduated scale, lacked a rational nexus with rehabilitation and offended article 14. The petitioners were entitled to the original scheme benefits. en-us Tue, 11 Dec 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 16 Jan 2014 16:58:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161379 The Rajasthan HC treated the 30 September 1999 notification as a substantive amendment, not a corrigendum, because it altered the tax incentive scheme and operated only on publication in the official gazette. It held that benefits under the unamended scheme vested when the application was complete, with the eligibility certificate relating back to that date, so a later prospective amendment could not curtail the accrued package absent express language. The Court also held that singling out sick cement units that had not previously availed exemption, while other sick units retained the graduated scale, lacked a rational nexus with rehabilitation and offended article 14. The petitioners were entitled to the original scheme benefits. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 11 Dec 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161379