<?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>1991 (4) TMI 147 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43349</link>
    <description>Promissory estoppel may protect an accrued exemption benefit where a company has altered its position by substantial investment in reliance on a government incentive notification, and no overriding public interest or legal bar is shown to justify withdrawal. A notification issued under delegated rule-making power is subordinate legislation, but that character does not by itself exclude estoppel when a clear representation has been acted upon. The commentary notes that, on these principles, the rescission of the exemption was treated as unenforceable against the petitioner and refund of excess duty for the relevant period followed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 19 Apr 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 Jun 2010 15:38:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=81878" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (4) TMI 147 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43349</link>
      <description>Promissory estoppel may protect an accrued exemption benefit where a company has altered its position by substantial investment in reliance on a government incentive notification, and no overriding public interest or legal bar is shown to justify withdrawal. A notification issued under delegated rule-making power is subordinate legislation, but that character does not by itself exclude estoppel when a clear representation has been acted upon. The commentary notes that, on these principles, the rescission of the exemption was treated as unenforceable against the petitioner and refund of excess duty for the relevant period followed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 Apr 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43349</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>