<?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>1969 (7) TMI 27 - CALCUTTA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8402</link>
    <description>Money payable by the Coal Board as assistance under the Coal Mines (Conservation and Safety) Act, 1952 could not be attached under section 226(3) of the Income-tax Act, because the grant was statutorily restricted to stowing and related safety or conservation purposes and could not lawfully be diverted to meet the assessee&#039;s tax arrears. The notice was treated as invalid on that ground, as a garnishee demand cannot compel breach of statutory conditions or interfere with the Board&#039;s duties. Service on the Secretary of the Coal Board was, however, held sufficient under section 282(2), because he was the principal executive officer managing the Board&#039;s affairs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 14 Jul 1969 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Apr 2009 12:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=47446" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1969 (7) TMI 27 - CALCUTTA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8402</link>
      <description>Money payable by the Coal Board as assistance under the Coal Mines (Conservation and Safety) Act, 1952 could not be attached under section 226(3) of the Income-tax Act, because the grant was statutorily restricted to stowing and related safety or conservation purposes and could not lawfully be diverted to meet the assessee&#039;s tax arrears. The notice was treated as invalid on that ground, as a garnishee demand cannot compel breach of statutory conditions or interfere with the Board&#039;s duties. Service on the Secretary of the Coal Board was, however, held sufficient under section 282(2), because he was the principal executive officer managing the Board&#039;s affairs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 14 Jul 1969 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8402</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>