<?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>1994 (6) TMI 190 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152052</link>
    <description>The first proviso to section 34(1) of the Bengal Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1944, which requires deposit of 50 per cent of the assessed tax as a condition for admission of appeal, was upheld by the majority as a valid statutory restriction on the right of appeal and not violative of article 14, article 21, or article 300A. The provision was treated as a uniform revenue-enforcing condition that did not render the appellate remedy illusory. At the same time, the majority granted the applicants one further opportunity to make the deposit within the time fixed so the appeal could be revived and heard on merits. The dissent considered the condition arbitrary and oppressive.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 09 Jun 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 22 Jun 2013 13:21:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=169090" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (6) TMI 190 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152052</link>
      <description>The first proviso to section 34(1) of the Bengal Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1944, which requires deposit of 50 per cent of the assessed tax as a condition for admission of appeal, was upheld by the majority as a valid statutory restriction on the right of appeal and not violative of article 14, article 21, or article 300A. The provision was treated as a uniform revenue-enforcing condition that did not render the appellate remedy illusory. At the same time, the majority granted the applicants one further opportunity to make the deposit within the time fixed so the appeal could be revived and heard on merits. The dissent considered the condition arbitrary and oppressive.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 Jun 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152052</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>