https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161595 An industrial incentive policy could not by itself secure deferment of sales tax and purchase tax where the statutory mechanism was not yet operative for the petitioners. Section 25A of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 and the later rules provided only a governed framework for deferment, and no order, notification, or valid application under that framework was shown. Promissory estoppel also failed because no clear and specific promise was established, and an executive assurance cannot override the taxing statute. The claim for deferment was rejected and recovery of tax upheld. en-us Wed, 08 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 01 Feb 2014 15:22:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161595 An industrial incentive policy could not by itself secure deferment of sales tax and purchase tax where the statutory mechanism was not yet operative for the petitioners. Section 25A of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 and the later rules provided only a governed framework for deferment, and no order, notification, or valid application under that framework was shown. Promissory estoppel also failed because no clear and specific promise was established, and an executive assurance cannot override the taxing statute. The claim for deferment was rejected and recovery of tax upheld. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 08 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161595