https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=385754 Under an industrial incentive scheme, the Commissioner's limited power to specify the effective date of an Eligibility Certificate did not include authority to curtail its validity period, so the reduction was liable to be quashed. The State was also bound by promissory estoppel because the scheme induced investment and the industrial unit altered its position in reliance on that promise; in the absence of overriding public interest, the incentives could not be withdrawn or diluted to the unit's detriment. The petition succeeded, the impugned order was set aside, and the incentive benefits were directed to be implemented without curtailment. en-us Tue, 16 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 20 Jan 2020 12:52:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=385754 Under an industrial incentive scheme, the Commissioner's limited power to specify the effective date of an Eligibility Certificate did not include authority to curtail its validity period, so the reduction was liable to be quashed. The State was also bound by promissory estoppel because the scheme induced investment and the industrial unit altered its position in reliance on that promise; in the absence of overriding public interest, the incentives could not be withdrawn or diluted to the unit's detriment. The petition succeeded, the impugned order was set aside, and the incentive benefits were directed to be implemented without curtailment. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 16 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=385754