https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175876 The expression "may" in section 5(3) was treated as mandatory in effect where the statutory conditions for relief were satisfied, because the scheme and purpose of the Act showed that eligible claimants were not to be denied relief at discretion. The Government was therefore bound to grant the relief once the protected conditions were met. The Act also required a quasi-judicial approach: claimants had to be heard and reasons had to be disclosed before rejection. An unexplained refusal without hearing did not satisfy the statutory duty and was invalid. en-us Tue, 06 Oct 1964 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 08 Dec 2015 10:18:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175876 The expression "may" in section 5(3) was treated as mandatory in effect where the statutory conditions for relief were satisfied, because the scheme and purpose of the Act showed that eligible claimants were not to be denied relief at discretion. The Government was therefore bound to grant the relief once the protected conditions were met. The Act also required a quasi-judicial approach: claimants had to be heard and reasons had to be disclosed before rejection. An unexplained refusal without hearing did not satisfy the statutory duty and was invalid. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 06 Oct 1964 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175876