https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155541 Concurrent jurisdiction conferred on tax officers was held inconsistent with section 4, which contemplated power tied to a local area, and the arrangement was also found capable of discriminatory consequences under article 14. A later amendment to section 4 did not itself cure the defect in the prior conferment of concurrent jurisdiction, and a subsequent notification delimiting territorial areas could not operate retrospectively to validate a notice already issued without lawful territorial authority. The impugned notice was therefore quashed, while proceedings by the officer having ordinary jurisdiction were left open to be taken afresh according to law. en-us Wed, 02 Sep 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 05 Sep 2013 13:19:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155541 Concurrent jurisdiction conferred on tax officers was held inconsistent with section 4, which contemplated power tied to a local area, and the arrangement was also found capable of discriminatory consequences under article 14. A later amendment to section 4 did not itself cure the defect in the prior conferment of concurrent jurisdiction, and a subsequent notification delimiting territorial areas could not operate retrospectively to validate a notice already issued without lawful territorial authority. The impugned notice was therefore quashed, while proceedings by the officer having ordinary jurisdiction were left open to be taken afresh according to law. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 02 Sep 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155541