Binding precedent on tax provision validity prevails despite notice objections where the States were already parties.

A prior five-Judge Bench ruling upholding section 33(6) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 was treated as controlling, so the Article 14 challenge failed. The objection that notices were not issued under section 100 read with Order XXVII-A of the Code of Civil Procedure was held immaterial because those notice provisions apply where a State is not already a party, and the relevant States were already represented. Any assumed procedural lapse could not displace the binding effect of the earlier precedent, and the validity of section 33(6) remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether section 33(6) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 was ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and whether the absence of notices under section 100 read with Order XXVII-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 affected the binding force of the earlier decision.

Analysis: The Court followed its earlier five-Judge Bench decision upholding the validity of section 33(6), and treated that ruling as controlling. The argument based on non-issuance of notices under section 100 and Order XXVII-A was held to be immaterial because those provisions are intended to notify a State Government when it is not already a party, whereas here the concerned States were parties and were represented. The Court further held that any assumed procedural lapse could not displace the binding effect of the prior decision.

Conclusion: Section 33(6) was not treated as invalid, and the challenge under Article 14 failed. The procedural objection did not affect the outcome, and the appeal was allowed following the earlier binding precedent.

Ratio Decidendi: A prior binding decision upholding the validity of a statutory provision governs later cases, and a claimed procedural defect in related notice requirements does not override that precedent where the concerned States were already parties and represented.

---