<?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>1969 (1) TMI 81 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287585</link>
    <description>Procedural omissions in municipal tax publication did not invalidate the water tax where the municipality had substantive power to impose it, the essential resolutions were passed, and inhabitants had notice sufficient to object. Separate publication of the preliminary proposal was treated as a curable irregularity because the draft rules and linked proposal served the notice purpose. Non-publication of the modified proposal, after reduction of the rate and increase of the exemption limit, caused no substantial prejudice and was likewise cured. Omission to publish the special resolution was also held procedural, since the statute did not require it expressly and the notification operated as conclusive proof of valid imposition.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 Jan 1969 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 Apr 2020 16:35:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=610786" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1969 (1) TMI 81 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287585</link>
      <description>Procedural omissions in municipal tax publication did not invalidate the water tax where the municipality had substantive power to impose it, the essential resolutions were passed, and inhabitants had notice sufficient to object. Separate publication of the preliminary proposal was treated as a curable irregularity because the draft rules and linked proposal served the notice purpose. Non-publication of the modified proposal, after reduction of the rate and increase of the exemption limit, caused no substantial prejudice and was likewise cured. Omission to publish the special resolution was also held procedural, since the statute did not require it expressly and the notification operated as conclusive proof of valid imposition.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Jan 1969 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287585</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>