https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=443746 A settlement rejection was unsustainable because the order was bare, mechanical, and unsupported by reasons, and the reply affidavit did not cure that defect. The refund adjustment order also failed because the authority acted under Rule 51 of the Bombay Sales Tax Rules, 1959 in relation to dues governed by the Maharashtra Purchase Tax on Sugarcane Act, 1962, without showing any legal basis for assuming jurisdiction across enactments. Both orders were set aside, and the matter was directed to be reconsidered afresh in accordance with law, with liberty to pursue a fresh settlement application under the later settlement enactment. en-us Mon, 11 Sep 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 30 Sep 2023 08:26:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=443746 A settlement rejection was unsustainable because the order was bare, mechanical, and unsupported by reasons, and the reply affidavit did not cure that defect. The refund adjustment order also failed because the authority acted under Rule 51 of the Bombay Sales Tax Rules, 1959 in relation to dues governed by the Maharashtra Purchase Tax on Sugarcane Act, 1962, without showing any legal basis for assuming jurisdiction across enactments. Both orders were set aside, and the matter was directed to be reconsidered afresh in accordance with law, with liberty to pursue a fresh settlement application under the later settlement enactment. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Mon, 11 Sep 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=443746