<?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>Industrial policy electricity concession limited to new units; retrospective clarification excluded expanded existing enterprises from Clause 16(a).</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=100148</link>
    <description>Concessional electricity charges under Clause 16(a) of the 2019 Industrial Policy were held to apply only to new industrial enterprises, while existing enterprises undertaking substantial expansion fell under Clause 16(b) and could claim only the rebate linked to incremental consumption. The 29.04.2022 amendment substituting &quot;eligible&quot; with &quot;new&quot; in Clause 16(a) and aligning Clause 16(b) with substantial expansion was treated as clarificatory and retrospective, except for the newly introduced three-year duration under Clause 16(b), which operated prospectively. The respondent therefore had no entitlement to Clause 16(a) concession, and promissory estoppel could not create a benefit beyond the Policy&#039;s true scope.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 May 2026 07:29:14 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 27 May 2026 07:29:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=903935" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Industrial policy electricity concession limited to new units; retrospective clarification excluded expanded existing enterprises from Clause 16(a).</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=100148</link>
      <description>Concessional electricity charges under Clause 16(a) of the 2019 Industrial Policy were held to apply only to new industrial enterprises, while existing enterprises undertaking substantial expansion fell under Clause 16(b) and could claim only the rebate linked to incremental consumption. The 29.04.2022 amendment substituting &quot;eligible&quot; with &quot;new&quot; in Clause 16(a) and aligning Clause 16(b) with substantial expansion was treated as clarificatory and retrospective, except for the newly introduced three-year duration under Clause 16(b), which operated prospectively. The respondent therefore had no entitlement to Clause 16(a) concession, and promissory estoppel could not create a benefit beyond the Policy&#039;s true scope.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 May 2026 07:29:14 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=100148</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>