TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether an order passed by the Commissioner under section 42-B of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 was binding on the Tribunal so as to prevent it from examining afresh the merits of the taxability and exempt status of compressed woollen felts above 3 mm thickness.
Analysis: Section 42-B made the Commissioner's order binding on the authorities under the Act, but expressly excepted appeals. The appellate forum was therefore required to consider the question on merits notwithstanding the earlier clarification. The order under section 42-B was only a determination of rate of tax and could not foreclose appellate examination. The Supreme Court's observations on clarificatory circulars also supported the principle that such clarifications represent only the Government's understanding and do not bind courts or prevent recovery of tax according to law. The Tribunal was thus obliged to decide whether felts above 3 mm thickness satisfied the test of pliability and qualified for exemption.
Conclusion: The Tribunal was not justified in refusing to go into the merits, and the question had to be examined afresh by it. The reference was answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.
Ratio Decidendi: A Commissioner's determination under section 42-B is binding on subordinate authorities but not on appellate authorities, which must independently decide the issue on merits in accordance with law.
TaxTMI 
