https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154533 Section 20(3) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 contemplated revision applications subject to prescribed rules, and section 26 authorised rules on procedure, incidental matters, and the manner and time within which applications were to be made. Rule 66(2) of the Delhi Sales Tax Rules, 1951, which fixed the limitation period for revision applications, was therefore within the delegated rule-making power and not ultra vires. The contention that the Act did not permit prescription of limitation was rejected, and the challenge to dismissal of the revision application failed. en-us Fri, 19 Jul 1985 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 23 Aug 2013 14:19:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154533 Section 20(3) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 contemplated revision applications subject to prescribed rules, and section 26 authorised rules on procedure, incidental matters, and the manner and time within which applications were to be made. Rule 66(2) of the Delhi Sales Tax Rules, 1951, which fixed the limitation period for revision applications, was therefore within the delegated rule-making power and not ultra vires. The contention that the Act did not permit prescription of limitation was rejected, and the challenge to dismissal of the revision application failed. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 19 Jul 1985 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154533