<?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>2022 (4) TMI 558 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=420892</link>
    <description>An exemption from works contract tax granted in a revival scheme was held to be outside the scope of Section 10(1) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 because that provision permits exemptions only for specified goods or a genuine class of persons, not for a single industrial unit. Promissory estoppel could not be used to compel the State to continue a benefit contrary to statute, and the sanctioned revival scheme under the sick industrial companies law could not override the State tax prohibition. The later withdrawal of the exemption was therefore upheld, as continuation would have perpetuated an unlawful individual benefit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 08 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 08 Sep 2022 12:04:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=675861" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (4) TMI 558 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=420892</link>
      <description>An exemption from works contract tax granted in a revival scheme was held to be outside the scope of Section 10(1) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 because that provision permits exemptions only for specified goods or a genuine class of persons, not for a single industrial unit. Promissory estoppel could not be used to compel the State to continue a benefit contrary to statute, and the sanctioned revival scheme under the sick industrial companies law could not override the State tax prohibition. The later withdrawal of the exemption was therefore upheld, as continuation would have perpetuated an unlawful individual benefit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=420892</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>