<?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>1971 (8) TMI 92 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39969</link>
    <description>Octroi liability under the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 arose only through a statutory notification, not through the general extension of municipal rules, bye-laws, orders, directions and powers to newly included areas. Section 5(4) did not expressly extend an existing octroi notification, and strict construction of taxing provisions precluded imposing liability by implication. The municipality therefore could not collect octroi in the included factory area without a valid notification under section 62. The objection procedure under section 62 could not be bypassed, while the Article 14 challenge failed because inhabitants could object to their proposed inclusion under section 5(2).</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 11 Aug 1971 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 07 Aug 2014 23:37:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=78515" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1971 (8) TMI 92 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39969</link>
      <description>Octroi liability under the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 arose only through a statutory notification, not through the general extension of municipal rules, bye-laws, orders, directions and powers to newly included areas. Section 5(4) did not expressly extend an existing octroi notification, and strict construction of taxing provisions precluded imposing liability by implication. The municipality therefore could not collect octroi in the included factory area without a valid notification under section 62. The objection procedure under section 62 could not be bypassed, while the Article 14 challenge failed because inhabitants could object to their proposed inclusion under section 5(2).</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Aug 1971 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39969</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>