<?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>1999 (5) TMI 599 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174482</link>
    <description>A company incorporated under the Companies Act is a separate legal person, so land leased from the Central Government was not exempt from non-agricultural assessment merely because its shares were wholly held by the Union. After the 1974 amendment to the Andhra Pradesh Non Agricultural Lands Assessment Act, land owned by the Central Government and leased for non-agricultural use fell within the charging scheme, making the lessee liable as owner for assessment. Promissory estoppel could not defeat the statute, and the correspondence relied on did not create an enforceable exemption for the company. However, the amendment was not retrospective, so demands for periods before its commencement were unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 05 May 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 May 2016 16:16:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=400674" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (5) TMI 599 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174482</link>
      <description>A company incorporated under the Companies Act is a separate legal person, so land leased from the Central Government was not exempt from non-agricultural assessment merely because its shares were wholly held by the Union. After the 1974 amendment to the Andhra Pradesh Non Agricultural Lands Assessment Act, land owned by the Central Government and leased for non-agricultural use fell within the charging scheme, making the lessee liable as owner for assessment. Promissory estoppel could not defeat the statute, and the correspondence relied on did not create an enforceable exemption for the company. However, the amendment was not retrospective, so demands for periods before its commencement were unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 May 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174482</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>