<?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>1967 (7) TMI 26 - CALCUTTA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7078</link>
    <description>Jurisdiction to issue a recovery certificate depended on whether the officer was validly appointed and empowered as a Tax Recovery Officer under the relevant revenue framework. The article explains that the officer&#039;s appointment as Magistrate of the First Class and then as Additional District Magistrate was valid despite the Gazette notifications appearing in an inconvenient order, and the later extensions of service were also upheld. It further states that interim letters issued by the Deputy Secretary were effective as State executive action, and their validity was not undermined by the absence of the Governor&#039;s name because a later formal order confirmed continuation. Once the initial qualification was validly obtained, fresh conferment of Magistrate powers on each extension was unnecessary.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 17 Jul 1967 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 08 Feb 2009 11:37:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=46137" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1967 (7) TMI 26 - CALCUTTA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7078</link>
      <description>Jurisdiction to issue a recovery certificate depended on whether the officer was validly appointed and empowered as a Tax Recovery Officer under the relevant revenue framework. The article explains that the officer&#039;s appointment as Magistrate of the First Class and then as Additional District Magistrate was valid despite the Gazette notifications appearing in an inconvenient order, and the later extensions of service were also upheld. It further states that interim letters issued by the Deputy Secretary were effective as State executive action, and their validity was not undermined by the absence of the Governor&#039;s name because a later formal order confirmed continuation. Once the initial qualification was validly obtained, fresh conferment of Magistrate powers on each extension was unnecessary.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 17 Jul 1967 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7078</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>