https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295863 The impugned rejection of property tax exemption under Section 101(E) could not stand because an earlier writ direction had specifically required the Commissioner of the Corporation of Chennai to decide the request after hearing the petitioner and passing a reasoned order on merits. An order passed instead by the Deputy Commissioner was contrary to that judicial mandate, and the power to delegate could not override the express direction. The matter was therefore sent back to the Commissioner for fresh consideration on merits, with an opportunity of hearing, and no view was expressed on the exemption claim itself. en-us Thu, 01 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 23 Jun 2021 10:09:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295863 The impugned rejection of property tax exemption under Section 101(E) could not stand because an earlier writ direction had specifically required the Commissioner of the Corporation of Chennai to decide the request after hearing the petitioner and passing a reasoned order on merits. An order passed instead by the Deputy Commissioner was contrary to that judicial mandate, and the power to delegate could not override the express direction. The matter was therefore sent back to the Commissioner for fresh consideration on merits, with an opportunity of hearing, and no view was expressed on the exemption claim itself. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 01 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295863