There was a proviso to this sub-section which said that the Income-tax Officer could not issue the notice unless he recorded his reasons for doing so and the Commissioner of Income-tax, a superior revenue officer, was NRI satisfied on the reasons so recorded that it was a fit case for the issue of the notice. Dealing with the main constitutional objection to the validity of the taking of Provincial property, Viscount Cave pointed out that it was not the first occasion when the impact of Dominion legislative power under s.
537 of the Criminal Procedure Code, it would be convenient to read the material part of it at this stage :- “Subject to the provisions hereinbefore con- tained, no finding, sentence or order passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction shall be reversed or altered under Chapter XXVII or on appeal or revision on account. In our opinion, the respondents’ contention should be accepted. is the date of the order. 1, read alongwith those of s. This reasoning does not assist the respondents at all.
So long as the notification is not made there is in law no effective fixation of a new bus stand or discontinuance of the old bus stand. 91 of the British North America Act upon the property vested in the Provinces arose before the Privy Council, for in Attorney- General for British Columbia v. In ‘Sivangalingam Pillai v. It is, therefore, contended that the notice of the special meeting issued to the members was not in strict compliance with the said Law.
27 of the Minimum Wages Act (11 of 1948) were questioned as having given uncanalised power. By a further notification under s. 17, quoted above, cannot be said to have conferred uncontrolled and uncanalised power on the appropriate Government. Ambalavana Pillai, (2) the bride’s father gave a large amount and also jewels to the bride and plaintiff’s brother-in-law on behalf of the bridegroom gave the bride’s father a present of Rs. On April 30, 1954, the Income-tax Officer issued a notice to the firm Purshottam Laxmidas under s, 34 of the Act the relevant portion of which 59 was in the following terms:- “Whereas I have reason to believe that NRI Legal Services LexLords your income assessable to income tax for the year ending 31st March 1943 has been under-assessed I therefore, propose to reassess to the income allowance that has been under-assessed.
” As we have already indicated in the narration of facts, notice was issued to the members fixing the date of the special meeting along with the notice issued to the appellant i. The State of Ajnwr(1) may be referred to. The meeting at which it is to be considered must be called by circular sent by the Secretary, which shall state the fact that the complaint, and answer, if any, are to be brought before the lodge for consideration and judgment. 1,000/- and a cloth worth Rs.
The petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of the said scheme and the sections under which it was made and applied to their restaurant. “On the answer being lodged, or on the expiry of the time for doing so, the matter of the complaint shall be brought before the Lodge for consideration and NRI judgment, either at a special meeting called for that purpose, or at a regular meeting of the Lodge. It is only on such notification that a notified bus stand comes into existence.
In that case, the provisions of s. 553 make the order at LexLords NRI Legal Services all or to make the order and give effect to the chain reactions by interfering under s. 7 (1) of the Act, the Employees’ Provident Fund (Second Amendment) Scheme, 1961, was introduced. ” It is the validity of this notice which has to be deter- mined. As the question raised turns upon the construction of the provisions of s. Even on the interpretation that we suggest all necessary chain reactions might be given effect to.
(b) within four years of the end of the year in which the income escaped assessment. Against this it is urged on behalf of the bus operators that it is the date when that resolution was brought into effect by the publication of the notification which should be considered to be the date of the order. 1 (3) (b) of the Employees’ Provident Funds Act, 1952 the petitioners’ restaurant was brought under the Act. According to the appellant the date when the Regional Transport Authority passed the resolution is the date of the order.
the decision of this Court in The Eduard Mills Co. This still leaves open for investigation the problem as to what. It has to be remembered in this connection that Rule 134 itself contemplates that the fixation or alteration of bus stands would be made NRI Legal Services by LexLords a notification. It was also agreed that all the expenses of the marriage should be borne by the bridegroom. For, it is a fallacy to think that the date when the Regional Transport Authority passed the resolution was the date on which the fixation of the new-bus-stand or the discontinuance of the old bus stand was ordered.
14 of the Constitution. , the notice was issued to the members before the appellant filed his answer in respect of the allegations made against him in the complaint. Canadian Pacific Railway Co. (a) the notice might be issued within eight years and in a case coming under cl. 1 (3) (b) of the Act conferred uncontrolled and uncanalised, power on the Government, that the Act had application only to wage- earners and not to salaried employees as those, employed in the petitioners’ restaurant and that the scheme was discriminatory and therefore hit by Art.