https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=404467 A subsidy promised under an industrial policy, once acted upon and crystallised through an eligibility certificate, could not be withdrawn retrospectively by a later policy change or restrictive amendment. The Court treated the subsidy as part of the policy on which investment decisions had been made, and rejected the State's attempt to curtail the benefit after the policy period had run its course. It also held that, where the policy did not define "captive power plant," the term had to be read consistently with the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Electricity Rules, 2005. The State's narrower construction was rejected as inconsistent with the policy object and the governing central law. en-us Mon, 09 Nov 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 14 Jun 2021 11:39:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=404467 A subsidy promised under an industrial policy, once acted upon and crystallised through an eligibility certificate, could not be withdrawn retrospectively by a later policy change or restrictive amendment. The Court treated the subsidy as part of the policy on which investment decisions had been made, and rejected the State's attempt to curtail the benefit after the policy period had run its course. It also held that, where the policy did not define "captive power plant," the term had to be read consistently with the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Electricity Rules, 2005. The State's narrower construction was rejected as inconsistent with the policy object and the governing central law. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Mon, 09 Nov 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=404467