<?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>1998 (7) TMI 663 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159856</link>
    <description>A specific search-and-seizure power under the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 was treated as overriding the general territorial limit on an officer&#039;s jurisdiction, so an Inspector could search premises in another Charge where information created reason to believe that business records were kept there. The majority read sections 62, 65, 66 and 67 harmoniously and accepted the cross-Charge seizure as authorised. It also found that reasons had been recorded and that the absence of an independent witness did not, on the facts, invalidate the seizure under the Rules. The dissent took the contrary view on territorial jurisdiction. The majority directed release of the seized materials.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 31 Jul 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 03 Dec 2013 12:35:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=337988" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (7) TMI 663 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159856</link>
      <description>A specific search-and-seizure power under the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 was treated as overriding the general territorial limit on an officer&#039;s jurisdiction, so an Inspector could search premises in another Charge where information created reason to believe that business records were kept there. The majority read sections 62, 65, 66 and 67 harmoniously and accepted the cross-Charge seizure as authorised. It also found that reasons had been recorded and that the absence of an independent witness did not, on the facts, invalidate the seizure under the Rules. The dissent took the contrary view on territorial jurisdiction. The majority directed release of the seized materials.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 31 Jul 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159856</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>