https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274810 The Court found that the 1st respondent did not have the power to review its own order, thus quashing Ext.P5 to the extent it withdrew Ext.P4. The Court emphasized that allowing the withdrawal of Ext.P4 without proper legal recourse would amount to permitting an illegality, as the authority for clarification does not have the power to review its own orders. Consequently, the Court quashed Ext.P5 to the limited extent of withdrawing Ext.P4. The writ petition was allowed. en-us Wed, 22 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 05 Sep 2018 06:47:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274810 The Court found that the 1st respondent did not have the power to review its own order, thus quashing Ext.P5 to the extent it withdrew Ext.P4. The Court emphasized that allowing the withdrawal of Ext.P4 without proper legal recourse would amount to permitting an illegality, as the authority for clarification does not have the power to review its own orders. Consequently, the Court quashed Ext.P5 to the limited extent of withdrawing Ext.P4. The writ petition was allowed. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 22 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274810