<?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>1985 (9) TMI 344 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173909</link>
    <description>Later valid municipal octroi rules and bye-laws displaced an earlier octroi arrangement in the same field where the two were repugnant, so the absence of a separate exemption did not prevent their operation. A saving clause preserved the sanctioned rules and bye-laws after repeal of the earlier municipal statute, including the legal consequences of what had already been duly completed. A corrigendum correcting typographical and printing errors was treated as non-substantive and did not require fresh rule-making or invalidate the scheme. The challenge to the enhanced octroi levy therefore failed and the municipal levy was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 03 Sep 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 Sep 2015 15:22:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=398646" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1985 (9) TMI 344 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173909</link>
      <description>Later valid municipal octroi rules and bye-laws displaced an earlier octroi arrangement in the same field where the two were repugnant, so the absence of a separate exemption did not prevent their operation. A saving clause preserved the sanctioned rules and bye-laws after repeal of the earlier municipal statute, including the legal consequences of what had already been duly completed. A corrigendum correcting typographical and printing errors was treated as non-substantive and did not require fresh rule-making or invalidate the scheme. The challenge to the enhanced octroi levy therefore failed and the municipal levy was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Sep 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173909</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>