<?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>1949 (1) TMI 9 - HIGH COURT OF PATNA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291810</link>
    <description>A municipal tax assessment failed because the authorities did not establish that the mills lay within the municipal limits; the notification, map and inspection sketch relied on were insufficient, and the factual finding that the mills were outside the area was sustained. The suit for declaration and injunction was also held not to be barred by Section 377 of the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act, because that bar applied only to suits arising from tortious acts and did not cover a challenge to an allegedly illegal assessment and recovery. The assessment challenge therefore succeeded, and the decree in favour of the plaintiff was maintained with costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 25 Jan 1949 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Nov 2020 15:11:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=628583" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1949 (1) TMI 9 - HIGH COURT OF PATNA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291810</link>
      <description>A municipal tax assessment failed because the authorities did not establish that the mills lay within the municipal limits; the notification, map and inspection sketch relied on were insufficient, and the factual finding that the mills were outside the area was sustained. The suit for declaration and injunction was also held not to be barred by Section 377 of the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act, because that bar applied only to suits arising from tortious acts and did not cover a challenge to an allegedly illegal assessment and recovery. The assessment challenge therefore succeeded, and the decree in favour of the plaintiff was maintained with costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Jan 1949 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291810</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>