https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44691 The dominant issue was whether a claimant could invoke Article 14 to demand extension of an exemption notification merely because similar exemption had been wrongly granted to others. The SC held that Article 14 cannot be used to perpetuate illegality: an unsustainable or illegal benefit conferred by erroneous orders cannot constitute a valid comparator or foundation for alleging discrimination, and correct orders need not be withheld to maintain parity. Relying on prior SC authority, the Court disapproved the contrary approach and held that the earlier view suggesting such parity was not good law. Consequently, the exemption benefit was denied and the SLP was dismissed. en-us Mon, 15 Sep 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 29 Dec 2025 22:52:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44691 The dominant issue was whether a claimant could invoke Article 14 to demand extension of an exemption notification merely because similar exemption had been wrongly granted to others. The SC held that Article 14 cannot be used to perpetuate illegality: an unsustainable or illegal benefit conferred by erroneous orders cannot constitute a valid comparator or foundation for alleging discrimination, and correct orders need not be withheld to maintain parity. Relying on prior SC authority, the Court disapproved the contrary approach and held that the earlier view suggesting such parity was not good law. Consequently, the exemption benefit was denied and the SLP was dismissed. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 15 Sep 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44691