<?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>2011 (1) TMI 1534 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276679</link>
    <description>A Gram Panchayat&#039;s power to levy property tax under the Bombay Village Panchayats Act was found distinct from MIDC service charges, which operate as a separate impost. The memorandum and lease deed did not create any enforceable promise of tax exemption, as the materials contemplated assistance in resolving disputes and required payment of taxes and outgoings. Promissory estoppel therefore could not defeat the statutory levy. The text also notes that no notification suspending the levy was shown, and that the procedural objection to the second appeal hearing was unsupported by any statutory rule requiring all Standing Committee members to sit together.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 31 Jan 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 15 Nov 2018 17:49:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=542034" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (1) TMI 1534 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276679</link>
      <description>A Gram Panchayat&#039;s power to levy property tax under the Bombay Village Panchayats Act was found distinct from MIDC service charges, which operate as a separate impost. The memorandum and lease deed did not create any enforceable promise of tax exemption, as the materials contemplated assistance in resolving disputes and required payment of taxes and outgoings. Promissory estoppel therefore could not defeat the statutory levy. The text also notes that no notification suspending the levy was shown, and that the procedural objection to the second appeal hearing was unsupported by any statutory rule requiring all Standing Committee members to sit together.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 31 Jan 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276679</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>