SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1965 Supreme(Guj) 32

J.M.SHELAT, P.N.BHAGWATI
KANTILAL POPATLAL SHAH – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: K.M.Desai, P.B.PATVARI

P. N. BHAGWATI, J. M. SHELAT, J.

( 1 ) THESE petitions under Article226 of the Constitution raise an interesting question of law relating to the validity of Urban Immov- able Property tax sought to be collected by the Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad on behalf of the State of Gujarat from the owners of various plots of open land situate within the City of Ahmedabad. The facts involved in these petitions are identical and so is the question of law arising in them and it would therefore be convenient to dispose them of by a common judgment.

( 2 ) PRIOR to 1st July 1950 the Ahmedabad Municipality (hereinafter referred to as the Municipality) was a Borough Municipality governed by the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act 1925 (hereinafter referred to as the Boroughs Act ). There were in force during the period upto 31st March 1947 the Valuation and Taxation Rules made by the Municipality under sec. 58 (1) and sanctioned by the Government by their resolution dated 14 February 1931 under sec. 76 prescribing various taxes leviable by the Municipality. Amongst these taxes was a tax on non-residential buildings and lands belonging to mills and factories and open lands and yards be- longing to rai















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top