https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314365 The SC held that ex-post facto approval constitutes sufficient compliance with the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 3A regarding storage and removal of sugar by mills. The Court distinguished between "approval" and "prior approval," noting that where prior approval is required, the word "prior" must be expressly stated in the provision. Since "prior" was absent from the relevant provision, subsequent approval by the Assessing Authority was valid. The penalty levy was therefore unjustified, and the HC judgment was set aside with appeal allowed. en-us Mon, 14 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 04 Jun 2024 07:17:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314365 The SC held that ex-post facto approval constitutes sufficient compliance with the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 3A regarding storage and removal of sugar by mills. The Court distinguished between "approval" and "prior approval," noting that where prior approval is required, the word "prior" must be expressly stated in the provision. Since "prior" was absent from the relevant provision, subsequent approval by the Assessing Authority was valid. The penalty levy was therefore unjustified, and the HC judgment was set aside with appeal allowed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 14 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314365