https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49386 A pre-Constitution concession embodied in a State order and later contract did not acquire the status of continuing law under Article 372 because the 18 January 1947 order was an acceptance of the company's request, not a legislative act of general application. The 7 April 1947 agreement did not become an immutable constitutional obligation under Article 295(1)(b), as that provision concerns devolution of rights and liabilities and does not protect contractual tax exemptions from valid fiscal legislation. Article 278 likewise did not preserve the company's exemption, since it governs intergovernmental revenue arrangements, not private tax immunities. The claimed exemption was therefore superseded by valid legislation. en-us Tue, 28 Apr 1964 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 27 Aug 2014 15:24:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49386 A pre-Constitution concession embodied in a State order and later contract did not acquire the status of continuing law under Article 372 because the 18 January 1947 order was an acceptance of the company's request, not a legislative act of general application. The 7 April 1947 agreement did not become an immutable constitutional obligation under Article 295(1)(b), as that provision concerns devolution of rights and liabilities and does not protect contractual tax exemptions from valid fiscal legislation. Article 278 likewise did not preserve the company's exemption, since it governs intergovernmental revenue arrangements, not private tax immunities. The claimed exemption was therefore superseded by valid legislation. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 28 Apr 1964 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49386