https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103379 Section 33(6) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 remained valid against the Article 14 challenge because an earlier five-Judge Bench decision upholding it governed subsequent proceedings. Notice requirements under section 100 read with Order XXVII-A of the Code of Civil Procedure serve to notify a State Government that is not already a party. Where the concerned States were parties and represented, non-issuance of such notices did not affect the binding force of the earlier ruling. Any assumed procedural lapse could not displace controlling precedent, resulting in failure of the constitutional challenge and allowance of the appeal. 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 Section 33(6) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 remained valid against the Article 14 challenge because an earlier five-Judge Bench decision upholding it governed subsequent proceedings. Notice requirements under section 100 read with Order XXVII-A of the Code of Civil Procedure serve to notify a State Government that is not already a party. Where the concerned States were parties and represented, non-issuance of such notices did not affect the binding force of the earlier ruling. Any assumed procedural lapse could not displace controlling precedent, resulting in failure of the constitutional challenge and allowance of the appeal. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 07 Nov 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103379