https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127454 Section 21 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act required prepayment of tax for an appeal, but Section 22 contained no equivalent mandatory condition for a revision application. On that construction, Rule 48 was inconsistent with the statute to the extent it made prior payment obligatory in every revision arising from an appellate order, because the legislature left prepayment in revision to the revisional authority's discretion. The amended rule reflected that discretionary scheme. The revisional authority was therefore entitled to insist on part-payment as a condition for admitting the revision, and the challenge to the prepayment requirement failed. en-us Tue, 13 Sep 1955 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 09 Mar 2013 12:30:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127454 Section 21 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act required prepayment of tax for an appeal, but Section 22 contained no equivalent mandatory condition for a revision application. On that construction, Rule 48 was inconsistent with the statute to the extent it made prior payment obligatory in every revision arising from an appellate order, because the legislature left prepayment in revision to the revisional authority's discretion. The amended rule reflected that discretionary scheme. The revisional authority was therefore entitled to insist on part-payment as a condition for admitting the revision, and the challenge to the prepayment requirement failed. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 13 Sep 1955 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127454