https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164202 The amended Section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 was held to operate prospectively from 11 May 2002, so the earlier exemption notification issued under the Industrial Policy, 1997 and the Meghalaya Industries (Sales Tax Exemption) Scheme, 2001 was not invalid when made. Because the petitioners had established industries and made substantial investments on the faith of the State's assurance of sales tax exemption, and no overriding public interest or want of authority was shown, the State was bound by promissory estoppel. The notification dated 5 September 2005 withdrawing the exemption was therefore illegal and unenforceable. en-us Fri, 13 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 28 Sep 2014 12:55:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164202 The amended Section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 was held to operate prospectively from 11 May 2002, so the earlier exemption notification issued under the Industrial Policy, 1997 and the Meghalaya Industries (Sales Tax Exemption) Scheme, 2001 was not invalid when made. Because the petitioners had established industries and made substantial investments on the faith of the State's assurance of sales tax exemption, and no overriding public interest or want of authority was shown, the State was bound by promissory estoppel. The notification dated 5 September 2005 withdrawing the exemption was therefore illegal and unenforceable. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 13 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164202