<?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>1974 (11) TMI 86 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150929</link>
    <description>The Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 confers wide revisional power on the Commissioner to revise assessments, and that power may extend to bringing escaped turnover into assessment where the Act contains no separate escaped-turnover provision. A transfer of files to the Central Section was upheld because the Commissioner&#039;s transfer order was legally operative and remained valid despite the retrospective amendment and the officer-change objection. The revisional proceeding was treated as suo motu rather than a revenue application, so the absence of any statutory right in the revenue to seek revision did not invalidate it. Applying the four-year limit for suo motu revision, the notice was held within time.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 23 Nov 1974 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 17:44:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=167968" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1974 (11) TMI 86 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150929</link>
      <description>The Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 confers wide revisional power on the Commissioner to revise assessments, and that power may extend to bringing escaped turnover into assessment where the Act contains no separate escaped-turnover provision. A transfer of files to the Central Section was upheld because the Commissioner&#039;s transfer order was legally operative and remained valid despite the retrospective amendment and the officer-change objection. The revisional proceeding was treated as suo motu rather than a revenue application, so the absence of any statutory right in the revenue to seek revision did not invalidate it. Applying the four-year limit for suo motu revision, the notice was held within time.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 23 Nov 1974 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150929</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>