<?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>2018 (5) TMI 440 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359876</link>
    <description>A pre-reorganisation exemption notification was treated as continuing in force for the successor State Bar Council because the Reorganisation Act preserved existing &quot;law&quot;, including notifications having the force of law, until lawfully altered or repealed. On that basis, the Council was entitled to exemption from the appointed day, and assessment orders issued on the contrary footing were jurisdictionally flawed. An administrative order limiting exemption to a later assessment year was also unsustainable because it ignored the continuing legal effect of the earlier notification. The writ remedy was available against action without authority of law, and the consequential tax proceedings were quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 26 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 05 May 2018 08:43:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=519245" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (5) TMI 440 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359876</link>
      <description>A pre-reorganisation exemption notification was treated as continuing in force for the successor State Bar Council because the Reorganisation Act preserved existing &quot;law&quot;, including notifications having the force of law, until lawfully altered or repealed. On that basis, the Council was entitled to exemption from the appointed day, and assessment orders issued on the contrary footing were jurisdictionally flawed. An administrative order limiting exemption to a later assessment year was also unsustainable because it ignored the continuing legal effect of the earlier notification. The writ remedy was available against action without authority of law, and the consequential tax proceedings were quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 26 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359876</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>