<?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>2017 (2) TMI 870 - PATNA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339170</link>
    <description>Ordinary meaning governed the eligibility clause for appointment as Member (Accounts) under the Bihar Value Added Tax Act, 2005 because the expressions &quot;administration of accounts&quot; and &quot;financial management&quot; were undefined. Prior experience in the Commercial Taxes Department was treated as relevant to applied accounts and assessment work, and the clause was not confined by ejusdem generis with adjacent qualifications. On bias, the settled test of real likelihood of bias was applied, and prior departmental service alone was held insufficient to show reasonable apprehension of prejudice. No pecuniary or personal interest was shown, so the appointment was upheld and the challenge rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 12 Feb 2018 17:26:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=459241" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (2) TMI 870 - PATNA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339170</link>
      <description>Ordinary meaning governed the eligibility clause for appointment as Member (Accounts) under the Bihar Value Added Tax Act, 2005 because the expressions &quot;administration of accounts&quot; and &quot;financial management&quot; were undefined. Prior experience in the Commercial Taxes Department was treated as relevant to applied accounts and assessment work, and the clause was not confined by ejusdem generis with adjacent qualifications. On bias, the settled test of real likelihood of bias was applied, and prior departmental service alone was held insufficient to show reasonable apprehension of prejudice. No pecuniary or personal interest was shown, so the appointment was upheld and the challenge rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339170</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>