Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the demand of advertisement tax could be sustained in the absence of prescribed machinery provisions for return, assessment, collection and recovery under the municipal statute.
Analysis: The statutory scheme permitted levy of advertisement tax and fixation of rates by notification, but the Court found that no bye-laws or rules had been shown to provide the machinery for filing returns, assessment, instalments, demand in prescribed form, and collection. Although the Act contained provisions for permission to display advertisements, bill presentation, demand notice, recovery, and appeal, the Court held that the absence of the prescribed procedure for assessment and collection made the demand unsustainable. Reliance was placed on the principle that a taxing levy must have an operative machinery for assessment and enforcement, failing which it may become arbitrary and confiscatory. On the facts, the impugned demand was not shown to have been raised under any validly prescribed procedure.
Conclusion: The demand of advertisement tax was held to be legally unsustainable and was quashed.
Ratio Decidendi: A tax demand cannot be enforced where the charging provisions exist but the statute does not provide the prescribed machinery for assessment, notice and collection required to make the levy workable and lawful.