<?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>1976 (5) TMI 92 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151193</link>
    <description>In revision under section 20 of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, the revisional authority could not enlarge a dealer&#039;s limited revision to reopen turnover already accepted by the appellate authority and not put in issue by the dealer. The power was wide, but it had to be exercised within the scope of the revision, with recorded reasons and a proper hearing before any adverse action. A notice calling upon the dealer to show cause why the entire claim should be disallowed was therefore beyond jurisdiction and invalid, because it sought to unsettle the portion of the appellate order that had already gone in the dealer&#039;s favour.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 May 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 01 Jun 2013 14:25:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=168232" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1976 (5) TMI 92 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151193</link>
      <description>In revision under section 20 of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, the revisional authority could not enlarge a dealer&#039;s limited revision to reopen turnover already accepted by the appellate authority and not put in issue by the dealer. The power was wide, but it had to be exercised within the scope of the revision, with recorded reasons and a proper hearing before any adverse action. A notice calling upon the dealer to show cause why the entire claim should be disallowed was therefore beyond jurisdiction and invalid, because it sought to unsettle the portion of the appellate order that had already gone in the dealer&#039;s favour.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 May 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151193</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>