TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court upholds decision on assessment list legality, dismisses appeal with costs.</h1> The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, emphasizing that the assessment list was not prepared according to law. The delegation to a ... Whether the assessment list of house tax and conservancy tax confirmed by the Municipal Council, Khurai, at a special meeting on February 24, 1964 is effective or is liable to be quashed on the ground that it was not made in accordance with the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961? Held that:- Appeal dismissed. The assessment list authenticated by the Chief Municipal Officer was not prepared according to law and, therefore, the provisions of s. 141 were not available to the Council. Upon the view we take we do not find it necessary to consider whether the reason given by the High Court is right or not. Issues Involved:1. Competence of the Municipal Council to appoint a Sub-Committee for hearing objections.2. Validity of the notice given for lodging objections against the assessment list.3. Legality of adopting a slab system with different and varying rates.4. Validity of the assessment list after the Collector's suspension and the application of Section 141 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961.Detailed Analysis:1. Competence of the Municipal Council to Appoint a Sub-Committee for Hearing Objections:The High Court did not find it necessary to address this issue directly, as its decision was based on other grounds. However, the Supreme Court noted that the power of hearing objections could not be delegated to a Sub-Committee unless explicitly allowed by the Act. Section 78 of the Act allows delegation of certain powers to specific individuals but not to a Sub-Committee. Therefore, the delegation of hearing objections to a Sub-Committee was not legally valid.2. Validity of the Notice Given for Lodging Objections Against the Assessment List:The High Court did not specifically address this issue either, but the Supreme Court considered it. The notice for objections was based on an assessment list prepared under a revoked resolution (March 3, 1963). Since the resolution was revoked on April 28, 1963, a new assessment list should have been published. The objections filed were based on the invalid list, thus not giving assessees the proper opportunity to object as required by Section 137 of the Act.3. Legality of Adopting a Slab System with Different and Varying Rates:The High Court did not delve into this issue, but the Supreme Court acknowledged it as part of the broader context. The slab system was introduced by a resolution on March 3, 1963, which was later revoked. The assessment list based on this revoked resolution was invalid, affecting the legality of the slab system.4. Validity of the Assessment List After the Collector's Suspension and the Application of Section 141:The High Court granted relief based on this issue, finding that the assessment list confirmed on February 24, 1964, was not valid since it did not address all assessees. The Supreme Court agreed, noting that the list authenticated by the Chief Municipal Officer was not prepared according to law. The resolution of March 3, 1963, was revoked, and the list should have been based on the old rate. The Council's action under Section 141 was not applicable as the list was not final under Section 142, and the proper procedure was not followed.Conclusion:The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, emphasizing that the assessment list was not prepared according to law. The delegation to a Sub-Committee was invalid, and the notice for objections was based on an invalid list. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
