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 the earlier clarification on the taxability of the petitioners' activity could be recalled without complying with the statutory procedure, and whether the requirement of section 52(2A) arose only if the earlier communication had been issued with the Commissioner's approval.
Analysis: The power to answer a question arising otherwise than in proceedings before a court lay with the Commissioner under section 52(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act. The statutory scheme also permitted review under section 52(2), but that power could be exercised only in compliance with the prescribed provisos. The communication dated 1 October 2001 had been withdrawn by the later communication dated 18 May 2005, yet the record did not show compliance with the mandatory procedural safeguards. The Court therefore drew a distinction between a communication issued with the Commissioner's approval and one not so issued: if the earlier communication had been approved by the Commissioner, the statutory procedure under section 52(2A) had to be followed; if it had not been so issued, the question of section 52(2A) would not arise and the petitioners were to be informed accordingly.
Conclusion: The recall of the earlier clarification was subject to statutory procedure, and the petitioners obtained conditional relief requiring the authority to determine whether section 52(2A) applied or not.
TaxTMI 
