https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152980 A defect in the prescribed notice under section 37(2) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act did not create any vested right or immunity against forfeiture where tax had been illegally collected in breach of section 46(2). The notice was only a procedural step for initiating forfeiture under section 37, so the omission in the earlier Form 29 was a procedural defect, not a substantive bar. After the form was amended, the revenue could issue a fresh notice in the amended form and continue the proceedings. The court rejected reliance on section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and held that no party has a vested right in a particular procedure. en-us Tue, 17 Feb 1981 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 15 Jul 2013 14:03:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152980 A defect in the prescribed notice under section 37(2) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act did not create any vested right or immunity against forfeiture where tax had been illegally collected in breach of section 46(2). The notice was only a procedural step for initiating forfeiture under section 37, so the omission in the earlier Form 29 was a procedural defect, not a substantive bar. After the form was amended, the revenue could issue a fresh notice in the amended form and continue the proceedings. The court rejected reliance on section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and held that no party has a vested right in a particular procedure. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 17 Feb 1981 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152980