TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
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
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the rescinding notification withdrawing the concessional excise exemption became effective on its publication in the Official Gazette on 30 November 1982 or only when the Gazette was made available to the public on 8 December 1982, and whether the excess duty recovered for the intervening period was refundable.
Analysis: The notification was issued under delegated legislative power and the statute required publication. Publication in the Gazette was not treated as complete merely by printing; the notification had to be made reasonably available to the public and to persons in the trade. The court distinguished cases where mere gazette publication was sufficient on their facts and relied on the principle that subordinate legislation must be promulgated or published in a manner that gives real public access. Since the Official Gazette containing the rescinding notification was available to the public only on 8 December 1982, the withdrawal of exemption could not operate against the respondents before that date. Individual intimation to a manufacturer did not amount to publication for the purposes of the statute.
Conclusion: The notification became effective only on 8 December 1982, and the respondents were entitled to refund of the excess duty recovered for 30 November 1982 to 7 December 1982.
TaxTMI 
