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 review proceedings initiated by the sales tax authority were barred for want of the Commissioner's prior sanction and for expiry of the 12-month period prescribed for review.
Analysis: The power of review under section 24(5) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1947 was subject to the rules framed under it. Rule 39 required reasons to be recorded for review, and where the order was passed by an officer other than the Commissioner, review after 12 months or of an order passed by a predecessor-in-office could be undertaken only with the previous sanction of the Commissioner. The relevant time limit was held to regulate the making of the review order and not the mere commencement of proceedings. Since the Commissioner himself had moved for review, and sanction was available when required, the procedural requirements of the rule were satisfied.
Conclusion: The challenge to the review proceedings failed; the review was competent and not barred by want of sanction or by lapse of time.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory rule makes the Commissioner's sanction a condition precedent to review after a prescribed period or by a successor authority, the sanction may support valid review proceedings, and the prescribed period limits the making of the review order rather than the initiation of proceedings.
TaxTMI 
