https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=429119 The SC held that promissory estoppel cannot operate against statutory provisions. The Union Government withdrew tax exemption notifications under Section 174(2)(c) of the CGST Act, which specifically provides that exemptions granted as investment incentives shall not continue if the notification is rescinded. The Court rejected appellants' estoppel claims, ruling that accepting such contentions would make statutory provisions redundant and permit estoppel to operate against Parliament's legislative functions. The Court emphasized that when policy changes serve larger public interest or result from statutory regime changes like GST Act introduction, the State cannot be bound by earlier representations. The appeal was dismissed, though appellants were permitted to make representations to State Governments and GST Council. en-us Mon, 17 Oct 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 10 Apr 2025 13:01:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=429119 The SC held that promissory estoppel cannot operate against statutory provisions. The Union Government withdrew tax exemption notifications under Section 174(2)(c) of the CGST Act, which specifically provides that exemptions granted as investment incentives shall not continue if the notification is rescinded. The Court rejected appellants' estoppel claims, ruling that accepting such contentions would make statutory provisions redundant and permit estoppel to operate against Parliament's legislative functions. The Court emphasized that when policy changes serve larger public interest or result from statutory regime changes like GST Act introduction, the State cannot be bound by earlier representations. The appeal was dismissed, though appellants were permitted to make representations to State Governments and GST Council. Case-Laws GST Mon, 17 Oct 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=429119