<?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>2015 (11) TMI 383 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267574</link>
    <description>Article 149 and Section 20 of the Comptroller and Auditor General Act were construed broadly to cover bodies beyond Article 12 State entities, including private bodies or authorities. The Administrator under Section 20(1) was required to act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, not eo nomine. Section 20(3) also required a meaningful prior opportunity to make representations against a concrete audit proposal, after consultation on the terms. Where an electricity regulatory statute already vested tariff and account oversight in the regulator, a proposed audit aimed at tariff support was not expedient in public interest and the audit direction was unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 30 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2015 18:12:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=404748" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (11) TMI 383 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267574</link>
      <description>Article 149 and Section 20 of the Comptroller and Auditor General Act were construed broadly to cover bodies beyond Article 12 State entities, including private bodies or authorities. The Administrator under Section 20(1) was required to act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, not eo nomine. Section 20(3) also required a meaningful prior opportunity to make representations against a concrete audit proposal, after consultation on the terms. Where an electricity regulatory statute already vested tariff and account oversight in the regulator, a proposed audit aimed at tariff support was not expedient in public interest and the audit direction was unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267574</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>