<?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>1900 (10) TMI 1 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292608</link>
    <description>A municipal tax on a life insurance company was not sustainable because the schedule did not clearly bring life insurance within the class of taxable trades or callings, and tax liability cannot be imposed without certain legislative language. The levy also failed the substantial-compliance protection, as the company had no taxable business within the municipality and its agent merely canvassed orders without authority to contract. A levy imposed on a non-taxable person or on business not carried on within municipal limits was treated as a substantial statutory breach, not a mere irregularity, and the demand was held invalid with costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 Oct 1900 00:00:00 +0521</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 01 Jan 2021 12:01:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=631847" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1900 (10) TMI 1 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292608</link>
      <description>A municipal tax on a life insurance company was not sustainable because the schedule did not clearly bring life insurance within the class of taxable trades or callings, and tax liability cannot be imposed without certain legislative language. The levy also failed the substantial-compliance protection, as the company had no taxable business within the municipality and its agent merely canvassed orders without authority to contract. A levy imposed on a non-taxable person or on business not carried on within municipal limits was treated as a substantial statutory breach, not a mere irregularity, and the demand was held invalid with costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Oct 1900 00:00:00 +0521</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292608</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>