https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302743 The Gujarat High Court held that a Competent Authority dealing with a notice under Section 26(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 cannot insist on particulars beyond those required by the statute or return the notice for that reason. Where the notice was supported by the required affidavit and purchaser's statement, there was no basis to enquire further into title or ceiling holding at that stage. The Court also held that binding prior High Court decisions had to be followed throughout the State, and that any false affidavit issue would call for prosecution for perjury rather than rejection of the notice. The impugned communications were invalid. en-us Fri, 28 Jan 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 15 Jun 2022 14:36:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302743 The Gujarat High Court held that a Competent Authority dealing with a notice under Section 26(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 cannot insist on particulars beyond those required by the statute or return the notice for that reason. Where the notice was supported by the required affidavit and purchaser's statement, there was no basis to enquire further into title or ceiling holding at that stage. The Court also held that binding prior High Court decisions had to be followed throughout the State, and that any false affidavit issue would call for prosecution for perjury rather than rejection of the notice. The impugned communications were invalid. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 28 Jan 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302743