<?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>2022 (11) TMI 1435 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311568</link>
    <description>A demand under the West Bengal Excise (Change in Management) Rules, 2009 was linked to whether appointment, resignation, expiry of term, and death of directors amounted to a change in management. The Court treated Rule 5 as applying only to a real shift in management, meaning a change in shareholding pattern or controlling interest. It noted that death in a public limited company was expressly excluded, and the other director-level changes were ordinary corporate events that did not by themselves alter management or control. The later amendment to Rule 3(i)(d) reinforced that change in management was confined to specified directorship and shareholding changes, and the demand could not be justified as a fee absent any nexus with services rendered.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 22 Nov 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 02 Jan 2024 20:17:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=738793" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (11) TMI 1435 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311568</link>
      <description>A demand under the West Bengal Excise (Change in Management) Rules, 2009 was linked to whether appointment, resignation, expiry of term, and death of directors amounted to a change in management. The Court treated Rule 5 as applying only to a real shift in management, meaning a change in shareholding pattern or controlling interest. It noted that death in a public limited company was expressly excluded, and the other director-level changes were ordinary corporate events that did not by themselves alter management or control. The later amendment to Rule 3(i)(d) reinforced that change in management was confined to specified directorship and shareholding changes, and the demand could not be justified as a fee absent any nexus with services rendered.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Nov 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311568</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>