<?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>2007 (5) TMI 687 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305980</link>
    <description>The Kolkata Municipal Corporation&#039;s demand for a one-time Drainage Development Fee as a condition for sanctioning building plans was found unsupported by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 and the Building Rules. Article 265 required authority of law for the levy, and the cited provisions permitted only annual drainage and sewerage fees, not a separate fee on building applicants. The collected amounts were treated as recoverable money paid under mistake of law under section 72 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, with limitation running from discovery of the mistake or judicial invalidation of the levy. The refund claim was held maintainable, and restitution with interest followed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 14 May 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 03 Jan 2023 14:15:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=700588" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (5) TMI 687 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305980</link>
      <description>The Kolkata Municipal Corporation&#039;s demand for a one-time Drainage Development Fee as a condition for sanctioning building plans was found unsupported by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 and the Building Rules. Article 265 required authority of law for the levy, and the cited provisions permitted only annual drainage and sewerage fees, not a separate fee on building applicants. The collected amounts were treated as recoverable money paid under mistake of law under section 72 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, with limitation running from discovery of the mistake or judicial invalidation of the levy. The refund claim was held maintainable, and restitution with interest followed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 14 May 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305980</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>