https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274937 A general written authorisation under the Reserve Bank of India Act was sufficient to support complaints filed by an authorised officer; the notification was not limited to offences already committed or to any single offence, so the challenge for want of authorisation failed. The court also treated the default in furnishing the required return as a continuing offence because the statute imposed further daily liability for each day the failure continued, bringing the matter within the limitation rule while the default persisted. On both points, the proceedings were allowed to stand. en-us Tue, 26 Feb 1980 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 11 Sep 2018 14:43:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274937 A general written authorisation under the Reserve Bank of India Act was sufficient to support complaints filed by an authorised officer; the notification was not limited to offences already committed or to any single offence, so the challenge for want of authorisation failed. The court also treated the default in furnishing the required return as a continuing offence because the statute imposed further daily liability for each day the failure continued, bringing the matter within the limitation rule while the default persisted. On both points, the proceedings were allowed to stand. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 26 Feb 1980 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274937