https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103379 A prior five-Judge Bench ruling upholding section 33(6) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 was treated as controlling, so the Article 14 challenge failed. The objection that notices were not issued under section 100 read with Order XXVII-A of the Code of Civil Procedure was held immaterial because those notice provisions apply where a State is not already a party, and the relevant States were already represented. Any assumed procedural lapse could not displace the binding effect of the earlier precedent, and the validity of section 33(6) remained undisturbed. en-us Wed, 07 Nov 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 21 Apr 2020 11:11:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103379 A prior five-Judge Bench ruling upholding section 33(6) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 was treated as controlling, so the Article 14 challenge failed. The objection that notices were not issued under section 100 read with Order XXVII-A of the Code of Civil Procedure was held immaterial because those notice provisions apply where a State is not already a party, and the relevant States were already represented. Any assumed procedural lapse could not displace the binding effect of the earlier precedent, and the validity of section 33(6) remained undisturbed. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 07 Nov 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103379