<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2006 (11) TMI 600 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163328</link>
    <description>Sales tax exemption under the 1986 policy and the Assam Industries (Sales Tax Concessions) Act, 1986 was confined to the conditions the State prescribed. The court held that the authorisation-certificate requirement was valid because the statutory scheme separated raw-material concessions from exemption on finished products, and the notification lawfully imposed conditions for new industrial units. The claim that finished-product sales enjoyed an unconditional exemption failed. Promissory estoppel also failed because the policy reserved governmental discretion, no clear and unequivocal promise of unconditional exemption was shown, and estoppel cannot override the statute or the notification. The statutory scheme and the impugned notification were upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 14 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 31 Mar 2014 15:44:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=350537" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (11) TMI 600 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163328</link>
      <description>Sales tax exemption under the 1986 policy and the Assam Industries (Sales Tax Concessions) Act, 1986 was confined to the conditions the State prescribed. The court held that the authorisation-certificate requirement was valid because the statutory scheme separated raw-material concessions from exemption on finished products, and the notification lawfully imposed conditions for new industrial units. The claim that finished-product sales enjoyed an unconditional exemption failed. Promissory estoppel also failed because the policy reserved governmental discretion, no clear and unequivocal promise of unconditional exemption was shown, and estoppel cannot override the statute or the notification. The statutory scheme and the impugned notification were upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163328</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>