<?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>2012 (11) TMI 973 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218958</link>
    <description>Where a special licence-control scheme prescribes that a Sub-Divisional Controller must issue the show cause notice and forward the explanation with remarks to the District Controller, that mandatory hierarchy must be followed for alleged breach of licence conditions. The District Controller could not bypass the prescribed procedure under the West Bengal Public Distribution System (Maintenance and Control) Order, 2003 by issuing the notices directly, so the notices were without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. The earlier internal memorandum did not finally determine the controversy over reconstitution and non-disclosure of partners, but any fresh action still had to be initiated by the competent authority in the manner required by the Order.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 04 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 Nov 2012 14:25:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=192328" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (11) TMI 973 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218958</link>
      <description>Where a special licence-control scheme prescribes that a Sub-Divisional Controller must issue the show cause notice and forward the explanation with remarks to the District Controller, that mandatory hierarchy must be followed for alleged breach of licence conditions. The District Controller could not bypass the prescribed procedure under the West Bengal Public Distribution System (Maintenance and Control) Order, 2003 by issuing the notices directly, so the notices were without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. The earlier internal memorandum did not finally determine the controversy over reconstitution and non-disclosure of partners, but any fresh action still had to be initiated by the competent authority in the manner required by the Order.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 04 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218958</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>