<?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>1969 (10) TMI 70 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168611</link>
    <description>A transitional octroi notification was construed as operating only when the municipality&#039;s own bye-laws validly came into force; because the bye-laws never validly commenced, the Government octroi rules continued to govern levy and collection for that municipality. The municipality was therefore entitled to recover octroi under those rules. The statutory current-account mechanism was treated as a procedural convenience requiring the trader to supply the particulars needed for settlement; where those particulars were withheld, failure to settle the account did not bar recovery under the statutory bill, demand notice and distress machinery, and disputes as to quantum had to be pursued through the prescribed appellate remedy.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Oct 1969 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2015 11:15:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=378841" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1969 (10) TMI 70 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168611</link>
      <description>A transitional octroi notification was construed as operating only when the municipality&#039;s own bye-laws validly came into force; because the bye-laws never validly commenced, the Government octroi rules continued to govern levy and collection for that municipality. The municipality was therefore entitled to recover octroi under those rules. The statutory current-account mechanism was treated as a procedural convenience requiring the trader to supply the particulars needed for settlement; where those particulars were withheld, failure to settle the account did not bar recovery under the statutory bill, demand notice and distress machinery, and disputes as to quantum had to be pursued through the prescribed appellate remedy.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Oct 1969 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168611</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>