<?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>1990 (5) TMI 217 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156425</link>
    <description>Under the West Bengal sales tax delegation scheme, seizure of a notified commodity had to be made by the officer authorised under the relevant delegation order. A Commercial Tax Officer acted without that delegated authority, so the seizure was without jurisdiction. Because the penalty order was based on an invalid seizure, it could not survive. The amount deposited for release of the goods was therefore refundable to the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 17 May 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 Sep 2013 15:26:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=173452" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (5) TMI 217 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156425</link>
      <description>Under the West Bengal sales tax delegation scheme, seizure of a notified commodity had to be made by the officer authorised under the relevant delegation order. A Commercial Tax Officer acted without that delegated authority, so the seizure was without jurisdiction. Because the penalty order was based on an invalid seizure, it could not survive. The amount deposited for release of the goods was therefore refundable to the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 May 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156425</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>