https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766781 Enforcement of an appellate direction and extension of industrial policy benefits were sought after the GST regime changed the policy framework. The High Court noted that the respondent had already accepted the petitioner's investment in construction in compliance with the appellate authority's order, but withheld the consequential benefit by relying on the post-GST position and the inapplicability of the earlier policy benefit. It further recorded that a later circular had modified the policy framework and that the respondent's own subsequent order showed compliance with the appellate direction. The petitioner was held entitled to the benefit flowing from the respondent's order dated 05/01/2022, and the benefit was directed to be extended within three months. en-us Mon, 10 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 04 Mar 2025 07:12:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766781 Enforcement of an appellate direction and extension of industrial policy benefits were sought after the GST regime changed the policy framework. The High Court noted that the respondent had already accepted the petitioner's investment in construction in compliance with the appellate authority's order, but withheld the consequential benefit by relying on the post-GST position and the inapplicability of the earlier policy benefit. It further recorded that a later circular had modified the policy framework and that the respondent's own subsequent order showed compliance with the appellate direction. The petitioner was held entitled to the benefit flowing from the respondent's order dated 05/01/2022, and the benefit was directed to be extended within three months. Case-Laws GST Mon, 10 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766781