<?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>1961 (4) TMI 87 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165477</link>
    <description>Omission to publish the final octroi resolution in the Government Gazette did not invalidate the levy, because the defect was treated as a curable irregularity under the saving clause and the resolution had otherwise been published in newspapers and communicated to affected persons. The octroi duty also did not violate Articles 276 or 301: Article 276 was held inapplicable because octroi is not a profession tax, and the levy was sustained as an existing municipal impost under a conditional statutory scheme that did not amount to an unconstitutional restraint on trade. The octroi levy was upheld on procedural and constitutional grounds.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 05 Apr 1961 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 29 Aug 2014 21:20:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=360301" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1961 (4) TMI 87 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165477</link>
      <description>Omission to publish the final octroi resolution in the Government Gazette did not invalidate the levy, because the defect was treated as a curable irregularity under the saving clause and the resolution had otherwise been published in newspapers and communicated to affected persons. The octroi duty also did not violate Articles 276 or 301: Article 276 was held inapplicable because octroi is not a profession tax, and the levy was sustained as an existing municipal impost under a conditional statutory scheme that did not amount to an unconstitutional restraint on trade. The octroi levy was upheld on procedural and constitutional grounds.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Apr 1961 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165477</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>