<?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>1970 (4) TMI 131 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128231</link>
    <description>A municipal tax collected beyond the constitutional ceiling is void to that extent, and a civil suit for refund remains maintainable even where the municipal law provides a refund mechanism, because a statutory remedy cannot displace relief against an unauthorised constitutional levy. The enhanced bale and boja tax rate was also invalid since the 1940 notification took effect after the relevant constitutional restriction had become operative, and earlier notifications could not authorise recovery beyond the later constitutional cap. Recovery above the ceiling under Article 276(2) was therefore impermissible, and the decree for refund was restored.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 01 Apr 1970 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Jun 2025 13:06:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=165102" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1970 (4) TMI 131 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128231</link>
      <description>A municipal tax collected beyond the constitutional ceiling is void to that extent, and a civil suit for refund remains maintainable even where the municipal law provides a refund mechanism, because a statutory remedy cannot displace relief against an unauthorised constitutional levy. The enhanced bale and boja tax rate was also invalid since the 1940 notification took effect after the relevant constitutional restriction had become operative, and earlier notifications could not authorise recovery beyond the later constitutional cap. Recovery above the ceiling under Article 276(2) was therefore impermissible, and the decree for refund was restored.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT / Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Apr 1970 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128231</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>