<?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>1983 (8) TMI 67 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45821</link>
    <description>Retrospective validation of a tax exemption remains within legislative competence where the Legislature removes the defect in the earlier scheme and changes the legal basis underlying the prior judicial decision, rather than exercising judicial power. The validating provision adopting the revised exemption framework was therefore constitutionally sustainable and not colourable legislation. An output-based ceiling could rationally identify tiny or cottage units for fiscal relief; retrospective operation did not make that classification arbitrary or restrict the right to carry on trade. Promissory estoppel could not restrain legislative action, and the asserted refund entitlement did not establish the claimed property protection. The validating provision and exemption scheme were sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 13 Aug 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Jul 2010 10:55:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=84348" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1983 (8) TMI 67 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45821</link>
      <description>Retrospective validation of a tax exemption remains within legislative competence where the Legislature removes the defect in the earlier scheme and changes the legal basis underlying the prior judicial decision, rather than exercising judicial power. The validating provision adopting the revised exemption framework was therefore constitutionally sustainable and not colourable legislation. An output-based ceiling could rationally identify tiny or cottage units for fiscal relief; retrospective operation did not make that classification arbitrary or restrict the right to carry on trade. Promissory estoppel could not restrain legislative action, and the asserted refund entitlement did not establish the claimed property protection. The validating provision and exemption scheme were sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 13 Aug 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45821</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>