<?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>2004 (4) TMI 624 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195013</link>
    <description>Toll collection under a BOT arrangement was upheld where the statute authorised levy and the tender and agreement contemplated periodic rate escalation. The court found that the revised notification correcting an earlier omission merely aligned the rates with the contractual terms and was not arbitrary. It also held that continuation of toll collection until the contractual concession period ended, including collection permitted during the construction period, was lawful because the project cost had not been fully recovered and no unlawful enrichment was shown. The challenge to the notification and collection arrangement therefore failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 28 Apr 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 11 Oct 2017 16:07:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=492210" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (4) TMI 624 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195013</link>
      <description>Toll collection under a BOT arrangement was upheld where the statute authorised levy and the tender and agreement contemplated periodic rate escalation. The court found that the revised notification correcting an earlier omission merely aligned the rates with the contractual terms and was not arbitrary. It also held that continuation of toll collection until the contractual concession period ended, including collection permitted during the construction period, was lawful because the project cost had not been fully recovered and no unlawful enrichment was shown. The challenge to the notification and collection arrangement therefore failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 28 Apr 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195013</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>