https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=237941 An application seeking revisional intervention under Section 67F of the Abkari Act was treated as a request for the Commissioner to examine whether revisional powers should be exercised, rather than as a substantive revision. The Commissioner was held competent to consider the material and either invoke revisional action if warranted or reject the request if no basis existed. Because security had already been furnished and the application was pending, coercive steps under the impugned notice were to remain in abeyance until the application was decided. The Commissioner was directed to dispose of the request within three months. en-us Fri, 06 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 11 Oct 2013 10:32:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=237941 An application seeking revisional intervention under Section 67F of the Abkari Act was treated as a request for the Commissioner to examine whether revisional powers should be exercised, rather than as a substantive revision. The Commissioner was held competent to consider the material and either invoke revisional action if warranted or reject the request if no basis existed. Because security had already been furnished and the application was pending, coercive steps under the impugned notice were to remain in abeyance until the application was decided. The Commissioner was directed to dispose of the request within three months. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 06 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=237941