https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104258 A later State notification and insertion of a State schedule entry did not impliedly rescind an earlier exemption notification issued under section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, because the later notification itself proceeded on the footing that the earlier notification remained operative. The Court rejected the argument that the central notification had been displaced by necessary implication and held that it continued in force. Separately, refusal to allow amendment of the writ petition to challenge finalised assessment orders was unsustainable, and the assessee was permitted to pursue the statutory appellate remedy, with limitation objections excluded if the appeal was filed in time. en-us Tue, 28 Jan 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 02 Jun 2016 13:06:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104258 A later State notification and insertion of a State schedule entry did not impliedly rescind an earlier exemption notification issued under section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, because the later notification itself proceeded on the footing that the earlier notification remained operative. The Court rejected the argument that the central notification had been displaced by necessary implication and held that it continued in force. Separately, refusal to allow amendment of the writ petition to challenge finalised assessment orders was unsustainable, and the assessee was permitted to pursue the statutory appellate remedy, with limitation objections excluded if the appeal was filed in time. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 28 Jan 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104258