https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282110 Publication in Kannada of the Section 3(1) notification was held mandatory because it formed an essential safeguard for informing affected traders, inviting objections, and enabling fair consideration before final market declaration. The Court found that non-publication vitiated the regulatory process, so the subsequent notifications and demand notices issued before completion of the statutory steps for establishing the market could not stand and were quashed. It also held that the writ petitions were not barred by res judicata or laches, since the earlier proceedings proceeded on an assumed factual basis that no Kannada publication had occurred and the continuing statutory non-compliance gave rise to a continuing cause of action. en-us Mon, 28 May 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 22 Jul 2019 14:06:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282110 Publication in Kannada of the Section 3(1) notification was held mandatory because it formed an essential safeguard for informing affected traders, inviting objections, and enabling fair consideration before final market declaration. The Court found that non-publication vitiated the regulatory process, so the subsequent notifications and demand notices issued before completion of the statutory steps for establishing the market could not stand and were quashed. It also held that the writ petitions were not barred by res judicata or laches, since the earlier proceedings proceeded on an assumed factual basis that no Kannada publication had occurred and the continuing statutory non-compliance gave rise to a continuing cause of action. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 28 May 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282110