<?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>1999 (4) TMI 601 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171214</link>
    <description>A statutory right of appeal may be made subject to a pre-deposit condition as a valid condition precedent to maintainability, because the requirement is designed to secure prompt municipal revenue and prevent abuse of the appellate process. Section 406(2)(e) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, as amended by the proviso limiting relief to 25% of the tax deposit, was held not to offend Article 14. The provision applies uniformly to all appellants who do not comply with the deposit requirement, and any hardship is addressed by judicial discretion to waive the deposit wholly or partly. The law was therefore treated as a regulatory measure, not an unconstitutional denial of appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 26 Apr 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Jul 2015 18:10:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=390151" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (4) TMI 601 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171214</link>
      <description>A statutory right of appeal may be made subject to a pre-deposit condition as a valid condition precedent to maintainability, because the requirement is designed to secure prompt municipal revenue and prevent abuse of the appellate process. Section 406(2)(e) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, as amended by the proviso limiting relief to 25% of the tax deposit, was held not to offend Article 14. The provision applies uniformly to all appellants who do not comply with the deposit requirement, and any hardship is addressed by judicial discretion to waive the deposit wholly or partly. The law was therefore treated as a regulatory measure, not an unconstitutional denial of appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 26 Apr 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171214</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>