<?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>1984 (5) TMI 232 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154340</link>
    <description>Under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, a registered dealer and, on death, the legal representative were required to intimate any change in ownership or discontinuance of business. The statute allowed the registration certificate to be amended and enabled the successor or transferee to be brought within the assessment net, with the transfer concept treated broadly enough to cover succession arising from continued business by surviving partners. The review mechanism could be used in such circumstances. The discussion also notes that recorded reasons and substance of notice were treated as sufficient, and that procedural objections or jurisdictional challenges did not, on these facts, prevent the review and writ proceedings from going ahead.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 04 May 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 17 Aug 2013 15:25:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=171373" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1984 (5) TMI 232 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154340</link>
      <description>Under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, a registered dealer and, on death, the legal representative were required to intimate any change in ownership or discontinuance of business. The statute allowed the registration certificate to be amended and enabled the successor or transferee to be brought within the assessment net, with the transfer concept treated broadly enough to cover succession arising from continued business by surviving partners. The review mechanism could be used in such circumstances. The discussion also notes that recorded reasons and substance of notice were treated as sufficient, and that procedural objections or jurisdictional challenges did not, on these facts, prevent the review and writ proceedings from going ahead.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 May 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154340</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>