<?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 (2) TMI 631 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171875</link>
    <description>A voluntary fertiliser subsidy arrangement was held to be administrative rather than statutory, because it was not sourced from the Essential Commodities Act or the Fertiliser (Control) Order. On that basis, the pricing norms under the scheme could be revised retrospectively where manufacturers had undertaken to accept the Committee&#039;s determinations and had participated in the pricing process. The challenge based on promissory estoppel, legitimate expectation, and Article 14 failed because no enforceable promise of fixed returns was shown, and judicial review in economic policy matters was confined to clear illegality, mala fides, or extreme arbitrariness, none of which was established.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Nov 2015 19:45:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=392491" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (2) TMI 631 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171875</link>
      <description>A voluntary fertiliser subsidy arrangement was held to be administrative rather than statutory, because it was not sourced from the Essential Commodities Act or the Fertiliser (Control) Order. On that basis, the pricing norms under the scheme could be revised retrospectively where manufacturers had undertaken to accept the Committee&#039;s determinations and had participated in the pricing process. The challenge based on promissory estoppel, legitimate expectation, and Article 14 failed because no enforceable promise of fixed returns was shown, and judicial review in economic policy matters was confined to clear illegality, mala fides, or extreme arbitrariness, none of which was established.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171875</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>