Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.21 seconds)
The Tirukuthalanathaswarni ... vs The Township Committee By Executive ... on 17 October, 1959 cites

The Municipal Council Of Mangalore By ... vs Rev. L. Doneda, Manager Of The Cordial ... on 3 December, 1903

Rut the opinions delivered by Lord Macnaghten and Lord Devey in that well-known case (LondonCounty Council v. Attorney-General L.R. (1901) A.C. 26) proceed upon a meticulous construction of those particular provisions and not upon the supposition of any general principle underlying them, and remaining unexpressed. No such supposition is legitimate. In the words of the late Rowlatt J., whose out-standing knowledge of this subject was coupled with a happy conciseness of phrase, m a taxing Act one has to look merely at what is clearly said. There is no room for any internment. There is no mpresumption as to tax. Nothing is to be read m, nothing is to be implied. One can only look fairly at the language used.'
Madras High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 18 - Full Document

Sir Gulam Mohammad Ali Sahib Bahadur vs The Corporation Of Madras on 19 March, 1929

In Sir Gulam Md. Ali Sahib Bahadur v. Corporation of Madras (1929) 57 M.L.J. 536, a question arose whether it was open to the Corporation to levy professional tax retrospectively. The learned Judges held that the tax being based on assessment should not be held to be due till it was so assessed, and that there was no power of backward assessment, and that the careful prohibition of retrospective assessment in the revision of property tax would indicate that there was no power to levy retrospectively. It is true that the Courtallam Township could not have taken steps earlier than it did to levy a tax from the date when it came into existence. But the power of taxation conferred on it are only those of a municipal council under Sections 78 and 80, and if those provisions did not confer a right to levy taxes retrospectively, it should be held that the Township Committee had no such power. There is nothing in Sections 78 and 80 expressly justifying a retrospective levy of the tax, and we find that there is nothing in those provisions to authorise or justify backward assessment. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the resolutions of the respondent Committee, dated 6th December, 1955 and 8th February, 1956 which levied the tax as and from 1st October, 1955, were not authorised, but contrary to the provisions of Sections 78 and 80 of the Act, and should be held to be illegal.
Madras High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

The Municipal Council, Represented By ... vs Sangsali Vasudeva Rao on 20 July, 1931

The learned Government Pleader relied on the decision in Municipal Council, Anantapur v. Vasudeva Rao 61 M.L.J. 642 : A.I.R. 1931 Mad. 808. There, proceedings were taken by the municipal council to enhance the rate of tax from 1st April, 1928. The resolution was passed in January, 1928 and the same confirmed on 17th March, 1928. The notification under Section 80 was, however, made only in April, 1928. That was in the next fiscal year. The validity of the tax was sought to be questioned. The learned Judges upheld the same on the ground that the tax was assessed by the resolution, and that the publication in the District Gazette was not vital for its validity. It must be noticed that the levy in that case was for enhanced tax and the terms of Rules 8 and 14 specifically enabled such enhanced tax to become operative from the beginning of the half-year, in which the resolution was passed. The learned Government Pleader then called m aid the Third Proviso to Section 78 as indicating a power to tax retrospectively. But, in our opinion, that Proviso would rather indicate that the date to be fixed under Section 78 should only be a future one, and not an anterior one as it contemplated a levy not coming into force and expressly negatived a right of amendment of a resolution during the particular year in which the resolution had taken effect.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

V.S.T. Thanusthaseem Hammepalli ... vs Melapalayam Municipality, ... on 27 March, 1959

14. It was then contended that the resolution relating to the levy of the assessment in pursuance thereof should be deemed to be severable, comprising two periods, one, the first half-year, and the other, the future half-years, and that while the resolution relating to the former period would be invalid it could be confined so as to validly operate in respect of the latter. Reliance was placed, in this connection, on Adlappa Chelliar v. Taluk Board, Devakottal (1938) 2 M.L.J. 589, and on certain observations made by one of us in V.S.T.T.H. Madarasa v. Melapalayam Municipality , to support the contention that where part of assessment was severable, the invalid part could be separated from the valid one. We are of opinion that there is nothing in the resolution to warrant such a distinction. To read them in the way contended for, would be to read it differently from what it purports to be. There being no valid resolution to support the assessments there could be no rated demand of the tax.
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

The Municipal Council Of Tirupati By The ... vs Sree Mahant Prayag Dossjee Varu on 13 July, 1914

In Municipal Council of Tirupati v. Sree Mahant Prayag (1914) 27 M.L.J. 231, certain buildings were used by Tirupati Devasthanam for stabling the Devasthanam coaches and horses which were employed in carrying drums in temple processions or allowed for use of respectable pilgrims to whom such honour was shown by the Mahant. It was held that the buildings were exempt from taxes, as the use was for religious purposes.
Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

The Municipal Council Through Its ... vs Sri Dhandayuthapani Devasthanam ... on 19 September, 1940

That decision was approved in Municipal Council, Palni v. Sri Dhandayuthapani Devasthanam (1940) 2 M.L.J. 897. That was a case where a power-house was erected by the Palni Devasthanam at the foot of the hill. The power house supplied energy not merely to the hill and the temple but also to certain shops and a hotel on the hill, for consideration yielding a profit. The learned Chief Justice, delivering the judgment of the Bench, held that the decision in the Municipal Council of Tirupativ. Sree'Mahant Prqyag2, was not open to criticism, because the buildings were used for purposes connected with worship in a public place, but that the principle of that decision was inapplicable to the case before him, as the power-house was being used for commercial, as well as religious purposes. A nandavanam is a necessary adjunct to a temple. The flowers grown there are used for the worship in the temple. In the present case it is stated that the flowers grown in the nandavanam are exclusively used for the temple. It would, therefore, follow that the petitioner would be exempt from paying the property tax (even if properly levied) by virtue of Section 83 (a) of the Act.
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1