<?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 treated as recoverable as arrears of land revenue under the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913, because Section 11(4) deemed them payable to the Collector for certificate proceedings. The note explains that the later definition of &quot;Collector&quot; and the amendment deeming 24-Parganas to include Calcutta removed the territorial objection, allowing demands arising in Calcutta to be pursued through certificate recovery. It also records that the 1913 Act provided additional, not exclusive, recovery powers, while Section 55 preserved other remedies and did not bar the certificate procedure. The recovery machinery was supported as constitutionally competent and applicable to the demand.</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 treated as recoverable as arrears of land revenue under the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913, because Section 11(4) deemed them payable to the Collector for certificate proceedings. The note explains that the later definition of &quot;Collector&quot; and the amendment deeming 24-Parganas to include Calcutta removed the territorial objection, allowing demands arising in Calcutta to be pursued through certificate recovery. It also records that the 1913 Act provided additional, not exclusive, recovery powers, while Section 55 preserved other remedies and did not bar the certificate procedure. The recovery machinery was supported as constitutionally competent and applicable to the demand.</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>