<?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>1966 (3) TMI 102 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289548</link>
    <description>The Madras Urban Land Tax Act, 1963 was analysed under the constitutional distribution of taxing powers and Article 14. The Act was treated as a tax on land qua land within Entry 49 of List II because the subject and incidence remained land, even though liability was measured by market value; it did not become a tax on capital value under Entry 86 of List I. However, the charging scheme based on average market value within a sub-zone was found arbitrary because it could produce unequal incidence between individual parcels without a rational basis or definite guidance for correlating the levy to each property. On that ground, the charging provision and related classification scheme were held to violate Article 14 and be void.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 25 Mar 1966 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 06 Aug 2020 10:35:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=619145" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1966 (3) TMI 102 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289548</link>
      <description>The Madras Urban Land Tax Act, 1963 was analysed under the constitutional distribution of taxing powers and Article 14. The Act was treated as a tax on land qua land within Entry 49 of List II because the subject and incidence remained land, even though liability was measured by market value; it did not become a tax on capital value under Entry 86 of List I. However, the charging scheme based on average market value within a sub-zone was found arbitrary because it could produce unequal incidence between individual parcels without a rational basis or definite guidance for correlating the levy to each property. On that ground, the charging provision and related classification scheme were held to violate Article 14 and be void.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 25 Mar 1966 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289548</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>