<?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>2025 (2) TMI 736 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766189</link>
    <description>A writ petition challenging a municipal property-tax demand was treated as maintainable despite the existence of a statutory appeal and pre-deposit requirement, because the grievance concerned non-compliance with the prescribed objection procedure and a possible breach of natural justice. The municipal scheme required objections to be entered, heard and decided by the Commissioner after affording an opportunity of hearing. As the objection remained undecided and no proper speaking order had been passed, the authority was directed to reconsider the matter afresh, allow time to produce supporting documents if necessary, and decide expeditiously. Coercive action on the earlier notices was stayed pending that decision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 17 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 20 Feb 2025 08:02:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=799622" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (2) TMI 736 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766189</link>
      <description>A writ petition challenging a municipal property-tax demand was treated as maintainable despite the existence of a statutory appeal and pre-deposit requirement, because the grievance concerned non-compliance with the prescribed objection procedure and a possible breach of natural justice. The municipal scheme required objections to be entered, heard and decided by the Commissioner after affording an opportunity of hearing. As the objection remained undecided and no proper speaking order had been passed, the authority was directed to reconsider the matter afresh, allow time to produce supporting documents if necessary, and decide expeditiously. Coercive action on the earlier notices was stayed pending that decision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 17 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766189</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>