Commission approval and association membership under sales tax law do not automatically extend a communication's benefit.

A communication treated as an order under section 52(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, if issued with the Commissioner's approval, must be dealt with under the procedure in section 52(2A); the earlier reference to section 52(2) was treated as a typographical error. The Court also clarified that it could not compel the Commissioner to review the communication. Mere membership of the petitioner association was not enough to claim the benefit of the communication; the benefit was confined to members whose activities fell within its terms.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the communication dated 1 October 2001, if issued with the approval of the Commissioner, attracted the procedure under section 52(2A) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959; (ii) whether mere membership of the petitioner association entitled an assessee to the benefit of that communication.

Issue (i): whether the communication dated 1 October 2001, if issued with the approval of the Commissioner, attracted the procedure under section 52(2A) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959.

Analysis: The earlier division bench judgment had already treated the communication as one under section 52(1), and the only surviving question was whether it was passed with the Commissioner's approval. The reference in the earlier order to section 52(2) was held to be a typographical error and was read as section 52(1). On that basis, if the communication was approved by the Commissioner, the statutory procedure under section 52(2A) would have to be followed. The Court also stated that it could not compel the Commissioner to review the communication.

Conclusion: Yes. If the communication was passed after the Commissioner's approval, section 52(2A) was attracted.

Issue (ii): whether mere membership of the petitioner association entitled an assessee to the benefit of that communication.

Analysis: The benefit of the communication was confined to a member whose activities matched the description contained in the communication. Membership of the association by itself was not sufficient to claim the benefit. The Court treated this as a prima facie position, subject to any future review of the earlier judgment.

Conclusion: No. Mere membership did not automatically confer the benefit.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was disposed of with the above clarification that the earlier communication would operate, if at all, only in accordance with section 52(2A) and only for members whose activities conformed to it.

Ratio Decidendi: A communication treated as an order under section 52(1), if issued with the Commissioner's approval, must be dealt with under section 52(2A), and its benefit cannot be extended merely on the basis of association membership unless the member's activities fall within its terms.

---