<?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>Promissory estoppel applied to SEZ octroi exemption, making the State liable for refund despite no municipal statutory amendment.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98542</link>
    <description>The State policy for Special Economic Zones in Maharashtra made a clear promise of exemption from all State and local taxes, including octroi, and contemplated reimbursement where direct exemption was not feasible. The Court applied promissory estoppel and held that, absent any overriding public interest, the promise had to be honoured because it aligned with the SEZ Act and Rules and the policy objective of encouraging SEZ development. It accepted that the petitioner was entitled to refund of octroi paid with interest, subject to verification, and fastened liability on the State Government. Refund could not be ordered against the Municipal Corporation without the necessary statutory amendment, and relief for amendment of the octroi rules was declined because those rules had ceased to operate.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 08 Apr 2026 08:56:59 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Apr 2026 08:56:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=895562" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Promissory estoppel applied to SEZ octroi exemption, making the State liable for refund despite no municipal statutory amendment.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98542</link>
      <description>The State policy for Special Economic Zones in Maharashtra made a clear promise of exemption from all State and local taxes, including octroi, and contemplated reimbursement where direct exemption was not feasible. The Court applied promissory estoppel and held that, absent any overriding public interest, the promise had to be honoured because it aligned with the SEZ Act and Rules and the policy objective of encouraging SEZ development. It accepted that the petitioner was entitled to refund of octroi paid with interest, subject to verification, and fastened liability on the State Government. Refund could not be ordered against the Municipal Corporation without the necessary statutory amendment, and relief for amendment of the octroi rules was declined because those rules had ceased to operate.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 Apr 2026 08:56:59 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98542</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>