https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326764 An industrial unit that had already enjoyed the original seven-year tax exemption or remission under the Meghalaya industrial incentive framework could not claim a fresh remission period under the later 2006 scheme merely because it expanded or obtained a later eligibility certificate. The later remission scheme was treated as providing alternative benefits without authorising a second full cycle of incentive, and the later certificates could not enlarge the original entitlement. Promissory estoppel was also unavailable because the approval and certificates did not amount to an enforceable promise of a further remission period, and the assessing authority remained competent to levy tax under the applicable sales tax and VAT laws. The writ petitions therefore failed. en-us Wed, 13 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 12 Jan 2017 12:32:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326764 An industrial unit that had already enjoyed the original seven-year tax exemption or remission under the Meghalaya industrial incentive framework could not claim a fresh remission period under the later 2006 scheme merely because it expanded or obtained a later eligibility certificate. The later remission scheme was treated as providing alternative benefits without authorising a second full cycle of incentive, and the later certificates could not enlarge the original entitlement. Promissory estoppel was also unavailable because the approval and certificates did not amount to an enforceable promise of a further remission period, and the assessing authority remained competent to levy tax under the applicable sales tax and VAT laws. The writ petitions therefore failed. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 13 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326764