https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792310 Concessional electricity charges under Himachal Pradesh's 2019 industrial policy were interpreted as applying only to new industrial enterprises, while existing units undergoing substantial expansion remained within a separate rebate regime for additional consumption. The 29.04.2022 amendment substituting "new" for "eligible" in Clause 16(a) was treated as clarificatory and retrospective to the extent it corrected the original drafting error, whereas the change limiting Clause 16(b) to three years was substantive. Promissory estoppel was rejected because the expanding unit had not been sanctioned the Clause 16(a) concession and could not use equity to obtain a double benefit not intended by the policy. en-us Mon, 25 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 27 May 2026 07:29:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792310 Concessional electricity charges under Himachal Pradesh's 2019 industrial policy were interpreted as applying only to new industrial enterprises, while existing units undergoing substantial expansion remained within a separate rebate regime for additional consumption. The 29.04.2022 amendment substituting "new" for "eligible" in Clause 16(a) was treated as clarificatory and retrospective to the extent it corrected the original drafting error, whereas the change limiting Clause 16(b) to three years was substantive. Promissory estoppel was rejected because the expanding unit had not been sanctioned the Clause 16(a) concession and could not use equity to obtain a double benefit not intended by the policy. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 25 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792310