<?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>2023 (12) TMI 753 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447069</link>
    <description>Mere changes in the board of directors, including routine appointments to fill vacancies, do not amount to a &quot;change in management&quot; under the West Bengal Excise (Change in Management) Rules, 2009, because the relevant inquiry is whether there is a change in control, ownership, shareholding or the company&#039;s managing structure as a whole. The Rules were also found to create an arbitrary distinction between private and public limited companies by giving private companies a narrower exemption in the proviso to Rule 5(1) without any intelligible differentia or rational nexus with the statutory object. Clause (d) of that proviso was therefore treated as discriminatory and ultra vires to that extent.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 06 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 18 Dec 2023 09:06:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=735511" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (12) TMI 753 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447069</link>
      <description>Mere changes in the board of directors, including routine appointments to fill vacancies, do not amount to a &quot;change in management&quot; under the West Bengal Excise (Change in Management) Rules, 2009, because the relevant inquiry is whether there is a change in control, ownership, shareholding or the company&#039;s managing structure as a whole. The Rules were also found to create an arbitrary distinction between private and public limited companies by giving private companies a narrower exemption in the proviso to Rule 5(1) without any intelligible differentia or rational nexus with the statutory object. Clause (d) of that proviso was therefore treated as discriminatory and ultra vires to that extent.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 06 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447069</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>