<?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>2017 (11) TMI 1888 - PATNA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287281</link>
    <description>An industrial incentive promising exemption from monthly minimum charges, minimum base energy charge, demand and billing demand for five years was analysed as continuing for the full stipulated period even after the Bihar Industrial Incentive Policy, 2011 had expired, where the unit commenced commercial production during the policy period. The policy was construed purposively to give full effect to the promised benefit once eligibility was achieved, and the contrary approach was said to defeat the scheme&#039;s object. The discussion also relied on promissory estoppel, noting that the State could not withdraw the incentive after the unit altered its position by acting on the policy. The impugned administrative view was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 27 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Apr 2020 09:56:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=609447" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (11) TMI 1888 - PATNA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287281</link>
      <description>An industrial incentive promising exemption from monthly minimum charges, minimum base energy charge, demand and billing demand for five years was analysed as continuing for the full stipulated period even after the Bihar Industrial Incentive Policy, 2011 had expired, where the unit commenced commercial production during the policy period. The policy was construed purposively to give full effect to the promised benefit once eligibility was achieved, and the contrary approach was said to defeat the scheme&#039;s object. The discussion also relied on promissory estoppel, noting that the State could not withdraw the incentive after the unit altered its position by acting on the policy. The impugned administrative view was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 27 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287281</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>