https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157823 Section 94-A permitted delegation by the Corporation to an officer or authority subordinate to it, but not a further sub-delegation unless the statute expressly or by necessary implication allowed it. The Court treated the power to levy damages under Section 85-B as quasi-judicial, requiring hearing of the employer and consideration of objections before imposition. It therefore held that the resolution authorising the Director General to empower another officer was beyond Section 94-A, and the office order issued under that invalid sub-delegation could not sustain the impugned orders. Relief was limited: amounts already recovered were not reopened, while unrecovered claims could still be pursued afresh. en-us Thu, 14 Jul 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 09 Dec 2015 12:40:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157823 Section 94-A permitted delegation by the Corporation to an officer or authority subordinate to it, but not a further sub-delegation unless the statute expressly or by necessary implication allowed it. The Court treated the power to levy damages under Section 85-B as quasi-judicial, requiring hearing of the employer and consideration of objections before imposition. It therefore held that the resolution authorising the Director General to empower another officer was beyond Section 94-A, and the office order issued under that invalid sub-delegation could not sustain the impugned orders. Relief was limited: amounts already recovered were not reopened, while unrecovered claims could still be pursued afresh. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 14 Jul 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157823