https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252427 The State could not withdraw a sugar policy to deny purchase tax exemption to units that had already acted on the promise, made substantial investments and obtained eligibility certificates; promissory estoppel, legitimate expectation and Article 14 barred arbitrary resilement without a substantiated public interest basis. The executive withdrawal also did not override the statutory notification granting remission under the Purchase Tax Act, so the notified exemption continued for the remaining period and demand notices could not stand. For the Maqsudapur unit, exemption could be considered only from the date of commercial production and subject to verification of eligibility by the State authorities. en-us Wed, 17 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 21 Oct 2014 11:59:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252427 The State could not withdraw a sugar policy to deny purchase tax exemption to units that had already acted on the promise, made substantial investments and obtained eligibility certificates; promissory estoppel, legitimate expectation and Article 14 barred arbitrary resilement without a substantiated public interest basis. The executive withdrawal also did not override the statutory notification granting remission under the Purchase Tax Act, so the notified exemption continued for the remaining period and demand notices could not stand. For the Maqsudapur unit, exemption could be considered only from the date of commercial production and subject to verification of eligibility by the State authorities. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 17 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252427