<?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>1996 (8) TMI 530 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174083</link>
    <description>A development authority under a planned-development statute may levy development fee and require advance deposit, bank guarantee or other security as a condition for sanction of development plans when that power is traceable to the Act and regulations, and the absence of an express rate provision does not defeat the authority. However, charges linked to actual use of facilities, such as stacking charges and water charges, cannot be demanded in advance without clear statutory basis. The result was that the authority&#039;s power over development charges was upheld, while advance recovery of use-based charges was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 21 Aug 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 29 Sep 2015 16:54:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=399269" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (8) TMI 530 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174083</link>
      <description>A development authority under a planned-development statute may levy development fee and require advance deposit, bank guarantee or other security as a condition for sanction of development plans when that power is traceable to the Act and regulations, and the absence of an express rate provision does not defeat the authority. However, charges linked to actual use of facilities, such as stacking charges and water charges, cannot be demanded in advance without clear statutory basis. The result was that the authority&#039;s power over development charges was upheld, while advance recovery of use-based charges was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 Aug 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174083</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>