https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187075 Challenges to the notifications were not barred by res judicata, merger or estoppel because the earlier proceedings concerned different notifications and did not directly decide the validity of the impugned measures. The Court further held that notifications granting and re-introducing a rebate with fiscal and policy consequences had to comply with the mandatory Business Rules under Article 166(3), including the required governmental concurrence and collective decision-making process. A unilateral decision by the Power Minister alone was insufficient to constitute a decision of the State Government, and authentication in the Governor's name did not cure the defect. The impugned notifications were therefore void in law and the consequential actions invalid. en-us Mon, 03 May 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 16 Aug 2023 16:09:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187075 Challenges to the notifications were not barred by res judicata, merger or estoppel because the earlier proceedings concerned different notifications and did not directly decide the validity of the impugned measures. The Court further held that notifications granting and re-introducing a rebate with fiscal and policy consequences had to comply with the mandatory Business Rules under Article 166(3), including the required governmental concurrence and collective decision-making process. A unilateral decision by the Power Minister alone was insufficient to constitute a decision of the State Government, and authentication in the Governor's name did not cure the defect. The impugned notifications were therefore void in law and the consequential actions invalid. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 03 May 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187075