<?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>1983 (7) TMI 34 - CALCUTTA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27995</link>
    <description>Interest on arrears was treated as recoverable in execution of the certificate because Section 16 of the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913 allows interest to be realised as part of the certificate proceeding and treats execution as a continuation of the original demand. The absence of a fresh certificate did not prevent recovery of that interest. Questions relating to execution, discharge or satisfaction of the certificate had to be raised in the statutory proceeding itself, consistent with Section 37 of the Act and the analogous procedure under Rule 9 of Schedule II of the Income-tax Act, 1961. A civil suit challenging the demand was therefore not maintainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 19 Jul 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 Feb 2010 12:49:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=66993" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1983 (7) TMI 34 - CALCUTTA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27995</link>
      <description>Interest on arrears was treated as recoverable in execution of the certificate because Section 16 of the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913 allows interest to be realised as part of the certificate proceeding and treats execution as a continuation of the original demand. The absence of a fresh certificate did not prevent recovery of that interest. Questions relating to execution, discharge or satisfaction of the certificate had to be raised in the statutory proceeding itself, consistent with Section 37 of the Act and the analogous procedure under Rule 9 of Schedule II of the Income-tax Act, 1961. A civil suit challenging the demand was therefore not maintainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Jul 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27995</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>