https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296543 The Corporation could validly levy water charges at 1.5 times the normal rate on plot holders who had not obtained a Building Completion Certificate, because the regulations and agreement authorised revision of charges and the classification had a rational nexus with compliance requirements. The 1998 circular issued by a subordinate officer created no enforceable right, as he lacked authority to depart from the Corporation's earlier circulars; promissory or equitable estoppel could not arise from an unauthorised act. Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 did not bar recovery, since the demand arose from contractual and regulatory obligations for water supply rather than from proceedings of the kind covered by that provision. en-us Fri, 02 Apr 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 27 Jul 2021 15:11:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296543 The Corporation could validly levy water charges at 1.5 times the normal rate on plot holders who had not obtained a Building Completion Certificate, because the regulations and agreement authorised revision of charges and the classification had a rational nexus with compliance requirements. The 1998 circular issued by a subordinate officer created no enforceable right, as he lacked authority to depart from the Corporation's earlier circulars; promissory or equitable estoppel could not arise from an unauthorised act. Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 did not bar recovery, since the demand arose from contractual and regulatory obligations for water supply rather than from proceedings of the kind covered by that provision. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 02 Apr 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296543