<?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>1965 (8) TMI 83 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171110</link>
    <description>A municipal valuation statute that assigns annual value assessment to the Corporation does not permit a court to make a fresh valuation itself after the original valuation is cancelled. Cancellation of the valuation ends the original assessment; the statutory mechanism then depends on fresh valuation by the Corporation within the prescribed time, not on a court-directed substitute valuation. Revised valuation applies only where an existing valuation is modified, and cannot be used to authorise a new valuation by the court. The majority therefore treated the High Court&#039;s remand as contrary to the statute, while the dissent would have upheld remand for ascertainment of annual value under the correct provision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 19 Aug 1965 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Jul 2015 12:58:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=389891" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1965 (8) TMI 83 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171110</link>
      <description>A municipal valuation statute that assigns annual value assessment to the Corporation does not permit a court to make a fresh valuation itself after the original valuation is cancelled. Cancellation of the valuation ends the original assessment; the statutory mechanism then depends on fresh valuation by the Corporation within the prescribed time, not on a court-directed substitute valuation. Revised valuation applies only where an existing valuation is modified, and cannot be used to authorise a new valuation by the court. The majority therefore treated the High Court&#039;s remand as contrary to the statute, while the dissent would have upheld remand for ascertainment of annual value under the correct provision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Aug 1965 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171110</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>