https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289913 Mere defects or omissions in an income-tax recovery certificate, including imperfect particulars or failure to separately specify tax and penalty, did not void the proceeding where the demand was sufficiently identifiable and no prejudice was shown; the validating enactment of 1961 also protected such certificates and notices. The West Bengal validating Act was not invalid for want of Presidential assent, as it was a declaratory State recovery measure in pith and substance and did not amend Central law. Objections to assessment of a discontinued unregistered firm and the absence of a fresh certificate after modification of demand did not vitiate recovery, and supervisory interference under article 227 was unwarranted because the subordinate authority acted within jurisdiction. The recovery proceedings were upheld. en-us Sat, 18 Mar 1961 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 29 Aug 2020 16:25:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289913 Mere defects or omissions in an income-tax recovery certificate, including imperfect particulars or failure to separately specify tax and penalty, did not void the proceeding where the demand was sufficiently identifiable and no prejudice was shown; the validating enactment of 1961 also protected such certificates and notices. The West Bengal validating Act was not invalid for want of Presidential assent, as it was a declaratory State recovery measure in pith and substance and did not amend Central law. Objections to assessment of a discontinued unregistered firm and the absence of a fresh certificate after modification of demand did not vitiate recovery, and supervisory interference under article 227 was unwarranted because the subordinate authority acted within jurisdiction. The recovery proceedings were upheld. Case-Laws Income Tax Sat, 18 Mar 1961 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289913