https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36262 The commentary explains that the Central Government's power to withdraw an earlier notification continued under the saving clause in section 297 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and was also supported by section 21 of the General Clauses Act; the later amendment was treated as clarificatory rather than the sole source of rescission power. It further notes that estoppel did not bar withdrawal because there was no clear representation that the concession would remain permanent, and State action under statutory power is not ordinarily defeated by estoppel absent fraud or manifest injustice. The article also records that the article 14 challenge failed for lack of specific pleadings and proof of discriminatory treatment. en-us Tue, 19 Dec 1978 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 20 Mar 2010 13:09:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36262 The commentary explains that the Central Government's power to withdraw an earlier notification continued under the saving clause in section 297 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and was also supported by section 21 of the General Clauses Act; the later amendment was treated as clarificatory rather than the sole source of rescission power. It further notes that estoppel did not bar withdrawal because there was no clear representation that the concession would remain permanent, and State action under statutory power is not ordinarily defeated by estoppel absent fraud or manifest injustice. The article also records that the article 14 challenge failed for lack of specific pleadings and proof of discriminatory treatment. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 19 Dec 1978 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36262