https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161718 Section 61(1)(d)(i) of the Haryana VAT Act, 2003 and rule 68 of the Haryana VAT Rules, 2003 were examined on a challenge that they unlawfully withdrew exemption benefits earlier available under the earlier sales tax regime. The court found no material to establish discrimination under Article 14 and reiterated that bare arbitrariness is not enough to invalidate fiscal legislation without a specific constitutional infringement. It also noted that the provision did not extinguish the assessee's position, but preserved a choice to opt for tax deferment instead of exemption. The request for extension of exemption was not decided on merits and was left to representation before the competent authority. en-us Mon, 26 May 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 27 Feb 2014 15:51:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161718 Section 61(1)(d)(i) of the Haryana VAT Act, 2003 and rule 68 of the Haryana VAT Rules, 2003 were examined on a challenge that they unlawfully withdrew exemption benefits earlier available under the earlier sales tax regime. The court found no material to establish discrimination under Article 14 and reiterated that bare arbitrariness is not enough to invalidate fiscal legislation without a specific constitutional infringement. It also noted that the provision did not extinguish the assessee's position, but preserved a choice to opt for tax deferment instead of exemption. The request for extension of exemption was not decided on merits and was left to representation before the competent authority. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Mon, 26 May 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161718