<?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>1957 (1) TMI 54 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278393</link>
    <description>The SC considered whether the Assam Revenue Tribunal (Transfer of Powers) Act, 1948 validly redistributed appellate jurisdiction and whether the Government&#039;s power to appoint the appellate authority amounted to excessive delegation. It held that the transitional provision in section 296(2) of the Government of India Act, 1935 did not require any particular tribunal structure, and that the 1948 Act itself lawfully allocated jurisdiction between the High Court and the appointed authority. The notification appointing the Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals was also upheld, as it merely implemented the statute and was not repugnant to the excise law. The appellate authority was therefore validly constituted, and its decisions stood.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 31 Jan 1957 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 30 Jan 2019 15:32:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=555704" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1957 (1) TMI 54 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278393</link>
      <description>The SC considered whether the Assam Revenue Tribunal (Transfer of Powers) Act, 1948 validly redistributed appellate jurisdiction and whether the Government&#039;s power to appoint the appellate authority amounted to excessive delegation. It held that the transitional provision in section 296(2) of the Government of India Act, 1935 did not require any particular tribunal structure, and that the 1948 Act itself lawfully allocated jurisdiction between the High Court and the appointed authority. The notification appointing the Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals was also upheld, as it merely implemented the statute and was not repugnant to the excise law. The appellate authority was therefore validly constituted, and its decisions stood.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 31 Jan 1957 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278393</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>