<?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>1942 (12) TMI 16 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302046</link>
    <description>A statutory first charge for municipal taxes under the U.P. Municipalities Act was held enforceable against property purchased at a court auction sale, because the expression &quot;transferred for consideration&quot; in Section 100 of the Transfer of Property Act was treated as wide enough to include an auction purchaser and the statutory charge was preserved by the proviso. The court also held that a purchaser in a municipal area may be fixed with constructive notice of tax arrears where municipal dues were known to exist and the purchaser wilfully abstained from inquiry or was grossly negligent in failing to investigate. On that basis, absence of actual notice did not defeat enforcement of the charge.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 22 Dec 1942 00:00:00 +0630</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 May 2022 17:00:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=677833" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1942 (12) TMI 16 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302046</link>
      <description>A statutory first charge for municipal taxes under the U.P. Municipalities Act was held enforceable against property purchased at a court auction sale, because the expression &quot;transferred for consideration&quot; in Section 100 of the Transfer of Property Act was treated as wide enough to include an auction purchaser and the statutory charge was preserved by the proviso. The court also held that a purchaser in a municipal area may be fixed with constructive notice of tax arrears where municipal dues were known to exist and the purchaser wilfully abstained from inquiry or was grossly negligent in failing to investigate. On that basis, absence of actual notice did not defeat enforcement of the charge.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Dec 1942 00:00:00 +0630</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302046</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>