9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (10) TMI 360X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the course of inter-State trade or commerce should be calculated at the rate of 2 per cent. The exemption notification was gazetted on November 24, 1965. 2.. On March 20, 1967, another notification was issued under the provisions of section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, the relevant portions of which read thus: "Cancellation of certain notifications relating to reduction in rate of tax under section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act. (G.O.P. No. 642, Revenue, 20th March, 1967). III No. 169 of 1967.-In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (5) of section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (Central Act 74 of 1956), the Governor of Madras hereby cancels, with effect on and from the 1st April, 1967, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es in the rates of sales tax payable, the appellants found that there was no need to continue the lower rates of tax admissible under exemption notifications. It appears that it was then contended before the High Court by the respondents that the reasons of the Board of Revenue could not refer to item 10 of the withdrawal notification because there was no reference to section 8(2)(b) of the Central Act therein. The High Court, therefore, held that there had been non- application of mind in issuing the withdrawal notification. 5.. Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, provides that where a statute or regulation confers a power to issue notifications, orders, rules or bye- laws, that power includes "a power, exercisable in like manne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondents' additional grounds took the plea that the withdrawal notification did not disclose that the appellants were satisfied that it was necessary in the public interest to withdraw the exemption notification and that this condition for the exercise of the power of withdrawal had not been satisfied. It was in response to this plea that the appellants filed an affidavit setting forth the proceedings of the Board of Revenue, to which we have adverted. Based upon these proceedings it was argued by the respondents before the High Court that there had been non-application of mind because the proceedings did not refer to section 8(2)(b) of the Central Act, which was relevant. The High Court upheld the argument. It is now contended by the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
