https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36262 Withdrawal of recognition of an official residence remained within Central Government power after repeal of the 1922 Act because the saving provision continued the earlier notification and the associated power to rescind it, as recognised by the General Clauses Act. The proviso governing exemption grants did not exclusively govern rescission. Estoppel failed because no clear assurance established that the concession would continue despite leasing, and statutory governmental power ordinarily cannot be defeated by estoppel without fraud or manifest injustice. The Article 14 challenge also failed because allegations of unequal treatment lacked specific pleadings, proof, and identified comparators. The withdrawal of exemption was therefore sustained. 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 Withdrawal of recognition of an official residence remained within Central Government power after repeal of the 1922 Act because the saving provision continued the earlier notification and the associated power to rescind it, as recognised by the General Clauses Act. The proviso governing exemption grants did not exclusively govern rescission. Estoppel failed because no clear assurance established that the concession would continue despite leasing, and statutory governmental power ordinarily cannot be defeated by estoppel without fraud or manifest injustice. The Article 14 challenge also failed because allegations of unequal treatment lacked specific pleadings, proof, and identified comparators. The withdrawal of exemption was therefore sustained. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 19 Dec 1978 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36262