https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395358 The court held that the State could not unilaterally alter or withdraw benefits promised under the Industrial Policy 2004-2009 after its expiry, as it would breach the concluded contract with entrepreneurs. The reduction in benefits post-policy period was not justified as a rectification of mistake, and policy changes could not retroactively affect completed transactions. The court upheld the principles of Legitimate Expectation and Promissory Estoppel, ruling in favor of the Petitioners' entitlement to the originally promised benefits. The State was directed to grant the benefits as per the original terms of the policy and agreement, allowing set-off against tax liabilities. en-us Fri, 04 Oct 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 27 May 2020 11:28:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395358 The court held that the State could not unilaterally alter or withdraw benefits promised under the Industrial Policy 2004-2009 after its expiry, as it would breach the concluded contract with entrepreneurs. The reduction in benefits post-policy period was not justified as a rectification of mistake, and policy changes could not retroactively affect completed transactions. The court upheld the principles of Legitimate Expectation and Promissory Estoppel, ruling in favor of the Petitioners' entitlement to the originally promised benefits. The State was directed to grant the benefits as per the original terms of the policy and agreement, allowing set-off against tax liabilities. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 04 Oct 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395358