<?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>2005 (9) TMI 695 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310704</link>
    <description>An export incentive under an economic policy may be amended or clarified in public interest under the enabling statute, and the clarification can operate retrospectively where it only makes explicit what was implicit in the original scheme. The Karnataka HC upheld exclusion of exports by EOU units and specified goods from incremental export turnover under the duty free credit entitlement scheme, treating the benefit as a promotional incentive rather than a vested right. It also sustained the policy amendment against challenges based on promissory estoppel, legitimate expectation and Article 14, holding that the Government retained power to revise the policy during its currency and that no concrete, enforceable detriment was shown.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 29 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Nov 2023 11:16:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=731622" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (9) TMI 695 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310704</link>
      <description>An export incentive under an economic policy may be amended or clarified in public interest under the enabling statute, and the clarification can operate retrospectively where it only makes explicit what was implicit in the original scheme. The Karnataka HC upheld exclusion of exports by EOU units and specified goods from incremental export turnover under the duty free credit entitlement scheme, treating the benefit as a promotional incentive rather than a vested right. It also sustained the policy amendment against challenges based on promissory estoppel, legitimate expectation and Article 14, holding that the Government retained power to revise the policy during its currency and that no concrete, enforceable detriment was shown.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310704</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>