<?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>1997 (8) TMI 524 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189108</link>
    <description>Disciplinary action against a tax assessing officer can be sustained where the charge concerns negligent discharge of duty, failure to scrutinise accounts properly, omission to tax turnover, or conduct causing loss to revenue. A mere erroneous quasi-judicial assessment order, by itself, does not justify punishment; however, that protection does not extend to recklessness, lack of good faith, undue favour, corrupt motive, or other misconduct in the performance of official duties. A tribunal cannot sit in appeal over the truth of disciplinary charges and may interfere only where no misconduct is made out or the charge is contrary to law. On these principles, the punishment was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 13 Aug 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 28 Dec 2016 15:02:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=453268" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (8) TMI 524 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189108</link>
      <description>Disciplinary action against a tax assessing officer can be sustained where the charge concerns negligent discharge of duty, failure to scrutinise accounts properly, omission to tax turnover, or conduct causing loss to revenue. A mere erroneous quasi-judicial assessment order, by itself, does not justify punishment; however, that protection does not extend to recklessness, lack of good faith, undue favour, corrupt motive, or other misconduct in the performance of official duties. A tribunal cannot sit in appeal over the truth of disciplinary charges and may interfere only where no misconduct is made out or the charge is contrary to law. On these principles, the punishment was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 Aug 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189108</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>