<?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>Validity of a Tax Recovery Officer&#039;s jurisdiction depended on valid appointment as a Collector, Additional Collector, authorised Certificate Officer, or specially empowered gazetted officer. Appointment as an Additional District Magistrate was treated as sufficient to satisfy the relevant definition of Collector under the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act. Gazette notifications, despite their printing order, validly effected appointment first as a First Class Magistrate and then as Additional District Magistrate. Extensions of the appointment remained effective; executive letters continuing the appointment were not invalid merely because they lacked the Governor&#039;s name, particularly where a formal Governor&#039;s order confirmed continuation. Fresh conferment of First Class Magistrate powers was unnecessary for each extension.</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>Validity of a Tax Recovery Officer&#039;s jurisdiction depended on valid appointment as a Collector, Additional Collector, authorised Certificate Officer, or specially empowered gazetted officer. Appointment as an Additional District Magistrate was treated as sufficient to satisfy the relevant definition of Collector under the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act. Gazette notifications, despite their printing order, validly effected appointment first as a First Class Magistrate and then as Additional District Magistrate. Extensions of the appointment remained effective; executive letters continuing the appointment were not invalid merely because they lacked the Governor&#039;s name, particularly where a formal Governor&#039;s order confirmed continuation. Fresh conferment of First Class Magistrate powers was unnecessary for each extension.</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>