https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329986 An incentive notification could not be applied retrospectively to a unit whose eligibility had already crystallised under the earlier regime; the amended condition was treated as a substitution of a core eligibility term, not a mere further condition, so no breach of Entry No. 255 arose and purchase tax could not be sustained. The Tribunal was also entitled to rely on promissory estoppel in sales tax proceedings, because the State's assurance under the incentive scheme induced the unit to alter its position; once the foundational breach failed, the consequential penalty also could not survive. en-us Fri, 06 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 28 Mar 2017 11:50:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329986 An incentive notification could not be applied retrospectively to a unit whose eligibility had already crystallised under the earlier regime; the amended condition was treated as a substitution of a core eligibility term, not a mere further condition, so no breach of Entry No. 255 arose and purchase tax could not be sustained. The Tribunal was also entitled to rely on promissory estoppel in sales tax proceedings, because the State's assurance under the incentive scheme induced the unit to alter its position; once the foundational breach failed, the consequential penalty also could not survive. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 06 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329986