https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157399 A tax exemption application under S.R.O. No. 969/80 had to be processed only by the authority designated in that notification, because the eligibility certificate and conditions for the benefit were fixed by its terms; action by a District Level Committee constituted for a different notification was therefore invalid. The rejection was also unsustainable because the petitioner was not heard and no reasons were given, making the decision contrary to fair procedure. S.R.O. No. 499/90 did not supersede S.R.O. No. 969/80, which continued to govern the claimed exemption. The impugned rejection was quashed and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration by the competent authority. en-us Thu, 17 Feb 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 04 Oct 2013 18:13:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157399 A tax exemption application under S.R.O. No. 969/80 had to be processed only by the authority designated in that notification, because the eligibility certificate and conditions for the benefit were fixed by its terms; action by a District Level Committee constituted for a different notification was therefore invalid. The rejection was also unsustainable because the petitioner was not heard and no reasons were given, making the decision contrary to fair procedure. S.R.O. No. 499/90 did not supersede S.R.O. No. 969/80, which continued to govern the claimed exemption. The impugned rejection was quashed and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration by the competent authority. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 17 Feb 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157399