<?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>1996 (9) TMI 590 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159333</link>
    <description>A taxing statute permitting initiation on relevant information does not require prior formal adjudication of an assessee&#039;s status unless the Act expressly makes that a condition precedent. On that basis, a notice under section 9(2) of the West Bengal Luxury Tax Act, 1994 was not invalid merely because stockist status had not been determined beforehand. The scheme of section 14(3) also preserved the prescribed authority&#039;s independent discretion: the Bureau of Investigation&#039;s report was treated as investigative material, not binding direction, and non-disclosure of that report at the notice stage did not vitiate the proceedings where a hearing remained available.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 26 Sep 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 20 Nov 2013 17:53:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=336320" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (9) TMI 590 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159333</link>
      <description>A taxing statute permitting initiation on relevant information does not require prior formal adjudication of an assessee&#039;s status unless the Act expressly makes that a condition precedent. On that basis, a notice under section 9(2) of the West Bengal Luxury Tax Act, 1994 was not invalid merely because stockist status had not been determined beforehand. The scheme of section 14(3) also preserved the prescribed authority&#039;s independent discretion: the Bureau of Investigation&#039;s report was treated as investigative material, not binding direction, and non-disclosure of that report at the notice stage did not vitiate the proceedings where a hearing remained available.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 26 Sep 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159333</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>