<?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>2002 (5) TMI 844 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171108</link>
    <description>A taxing exemption notification that added a new condition limiting poultry sales tax relief to farms on land owned by the farmer was held not to be merely clarificatory and could not withdraw an existing benefit retrospectively absent express statutory authority. The notification therefore operated only prospectively. The Court further held that the restriction had a rational policy basis, involved no hostile discrimination, and remained within the exemption power under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, so it was constitutionally valid and intra vires. The plea of estoppel also failed because there is no estoppel against law, and an earlier clarification could not override a valid later notification.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 30 May 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2015 10:20:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=389883" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (5) TMI 844 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171108</link>
      <description>A taxing exemption notification that added a new condition limiting poultry sales tax relief to farms on land owned by the farmer was held not to be merely clarificatory and could not withdraw an existing benefit retrospectively absent express statutory authority. The notification therefore operated only prospectively. The Court further held that the restriction had a rational policy basis, involved no hostile discrimination, and remained within the exemption power under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, so it was constitutionally valid and intra vires. The plea of estoppel also failed because there is no estoppel against law, and an earlier clarification could not override a valid later notification.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 May 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171108</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>