https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163182 Section 17(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act, 1994 allows rescission of a notification with prospective effect only, and the later notification here did not rescind the original one but merely classified industries by production status and steps for establishment. On the facts, the petitioner was not registered as an industrial unit on or before the cut-off date and therefore did not fall within the protected class entitled to the benefit. The principle of governmental estoppel discussed in Nestle India was inapplicable because the Government was not acting contrary to the original notification. No reference to a larger Bench was warranted, and the petition failed. en-us Tue, 08 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 25 Mar 2014 12:25:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163182 Section 17(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act, 1994 allows rescission of a notification with prospective effect only, and the later notification here did not rescind the original one but merely classified industries by production status and steps for establishment. On the facts, the petitioner was not registered as an industrial unit on or before the cut-off date and therefore did not fall within the protected class entitled to the benefit. The principle of governmental estoppel discussed in Nestle India was inapplicable because the Government was not acting contrary to the original notification. No reference to a larger Bench was warranted, and the petition failed. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 08 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163182