https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174913 In construing section 89 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1933, the Supreme Court read "house" in a broad statutory sense and held that it was not confined to dwelling houses. The statutory scheme, related provisions on other optional taxes, and the rules framed under section 108 supported an inclusive interpretation covering factory buildings, so the tax levy on factory premises fell within the panchayat's power. The Court also treated the 1952 tax resolution as continuing in force, since the 1964 resolution did not supersede it and the saving provision in section 186(8) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 preserved existing taxes until validly altered. The demand was therefore legally sustainable. en-us Mon, 23 Aug 1976 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 28 Oct 2015 14:20:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174913 In construing section 89 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1933, the Supreme Court read "house" in a broad statutory sense and held that it was not confined to dwelling houses. The statutory scheme, related provisions on other optional taxes, and the rules framed under section 108 supported an inclusive interpretation covering factory buildings, so the tax levy on factory premises fell within the panchayat's power. The Court also treated the 1952 tax resolution as continuing in force, since the 1964 resolution did not supersede it and the saving provision in section 186(8) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 preserved existing taxes until validly altered. The demand was therefore legally sustainable. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 23 Aug 1976 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174913