https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157298 A binding administrative circular governing recovery of revived sales tax demands required a fresh notice before coercive collection of tax arrears and penalty, even where an earlier demand notice had already been served. The Karnataka HC read the circular as a general procedural safeguard for assessees facing liabilities retrospectively validated by constitutional amendment, and held that subordinate authorities were bound to follow it under the Act. On that basis, revisional interference restoring the penalty was unjustified, and the assessee obtained relief against recovery of the revived penalty demand. en-us Wed, 24 Jun 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 03 Oct 2013 17:42:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157298 A binding administrative circular governing recovery of revived sales tax demands required a fresh notice before coercive collection of tax arrears and penalty, even where an earlier demand notice had already been served. The Karnataka HC read the circular as a general procedural safeguard for assessees facing liabilities retrospectively validated by constitutional amendment, and held that subordinate authorities were bound to follow it under the Act. On that basis, revisional interference restoring the penalty was unjustified, and the assessee obtained relief against recovery of the revived penalty demand. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 24 Jun 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157298