<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1965 (11) TMI 138 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=143066</link>
    <description>A pre-existing delegation under section 15 and rule 71 of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 was treated as a general delegation of the Commissioner&#039;s powers under section 11, including assessment and penalty functions. The later insertion of section 11(4B) did not require a fresh delegation because the delegated authority covered section 11 as a whole, not only the sub-sections existing on the date of delegation. The power to act under section 11(4B) therefore fell within the existing delegation, and the duty element attached to its exercise was incidental to that power. The challenge to the penalty notice accordingly failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 16 Nov 1965 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Apr 2013 18:10:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=166059" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1965 (11) TMI 138 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=143066</link>
      <description>A pre-existing delegation under section 15 and rule 71 of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 was treated as a general delegation of the Commissioner&#039;s powers under section 11, including assessment and penalty functions. The later insertion of section 11(4B) did not require a fresh delegation because the delegated authority covered section 11 as a whole, not only the sub-sections existing on the date of delegation. The power to act under section 11(4B) therefore fell within the existing delegation, and the duty element attached to its exercise was incidental to that power. The challenge to the penalty notice accordingly failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Nov 1965 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=143066</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>