<?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>2005 (8) TMI 626 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162037</link>
    <description>Rule 205 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1995 was upheld against challenge for permitting the Commissioner to authorise another officer in writing and for operating retrospectively. The parent Act expressly allowed rules with prospective or retrospective effect, and no existing right was shown to have been unlawfully taken away or a new liability imposed impermissibly. The provision was also held intra vires the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 because the delegation was limited and controlled, confined to penalty proceedings for non-issue of cash memos or bills, and did not violate delegatus non potest delegare.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 31 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 14 Feb 2014 17:32:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=346014" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (8) TMI 626 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162037</link>
      <description>Rule 205 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1995 was upheld against challenge for permitting the Commissioner to authorise another officer in writing and for operating retrospectively. The parent Act expressly allowed rules with prospective or retrospective effect, and no existing right was shown to have been unlawfully taken away or a new liability imposed impermissibly. The provision was also held intra vires the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 because the delegation was limited and controlled, confined to penalty proceedings for non-issue of cash memos or bills, and did not violate delegatus non potest delegare.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 31 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162037</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>