<?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>1992 (5) TMI 190 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182090</link>
    <description>The SC upheld the vires of the Karnataka Amendment Act, dismissed the applicability of promissory estoppel, validated the classification and uniform tariff rates, and found no merit in the challenge to the revised tariffs and billing. The appeal was dismissed, with no order as to costs. The Court suggested a pragmatic approach by the Central and State Governments to balance the interests of the electricity boards and the aluminium industry.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 13 May 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 29 Oct 2024 11:04:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=426341" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (5) TMI 190 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182090</link>
      <description>The SC upheld the vires of the Karnataka Amendment Act, dismissed the applicability of promissory estoppel, validated the classification and uniform tariff rates, and found no merit in the challenge to the revised tariffs and billing. The appeal was dismissed, with no order as to costs. The Court suggested a pragmatic approach by the Central and State Governments to balance the interests of the electricity boards and the aluminium industry.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 May 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182090</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>