<?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>1966 (6) TMI 9 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=145208</link>
    <description>Unpaid sales tax and penalty under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 were recoverable as arrears of land revenue through the certificate procedure under the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913. A public demand payable to the Collector could be certified by a Certificate Officer, and amendments defining &quot;Collector&quot; and treating 24-Parganas as including Calcutta removed the territorial objection to recovery of Calcutta-based liabilities. The certificate procedure operated as an additional remedy, not an exclusive one, and preservation of other remedies did not restrict it. Legislative competence and the notification applying land-revenue recovery procedure supported the Officer&#039;s jurisdiction to issue and enforce the recovery certificate.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 23 Jun 1966 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 23 Apr 2013 11:40:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=166223" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1966 (6) TMI 9 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=145208</link>
      <description>Unpaid sales tax and penalty under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 were recoverable as arrears of land revenue through the certificate procedure under the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913. A public demand payable to the Collector could be certified by a Certificate Officer, and amendments defining &quot;Collector&quot; and treating 24-Parganas as including Calcutta removed the territorial objection to recovery of Calcutta-based liabilities. The certificate procedure operated as an additional remedy, not an exclusive one, and preservation of other remedies did not restrict it. Legislative competence and the notification applying land-revenue recovery procedure supported the Officer&#039;s jurisdiction to issue and enforce the recovery certificate.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Jun 1966 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=145208</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>