Back
1931 Supreme(Mad) 205
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Madhavan Nair, J.
Municipal Council
Versus
Kashi Munuswami Mudaliar
Decided On : 02.09.1931
Important Points
Subject
Jurisdiction - Municipality Tax
Headnote
Jurisdiction - Municipality Tax - The court held that the Municipality had no jurisdiction to levy the tax in question since the notification contemplated by Section 80, District Municipalities Act, had not been published by the Municipality. The notification did not specify the rate at which the tax would be levied, as required by the section.
Fact of the Case:
The Municipality had no jurisdiction to levy the tax as the notification specifying the rate at which the tax will be levied was not published.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the civil revision petition with costs, agreeing with the lower Court that the notification in question could not be treated as the final notification contemplated by Section 80.
Issues: Jurisdiction of Municipality to levy tax, requirement of notification under Section 80, District Municipalities Act
Ratio Decidendi: The Municipality had no jurisdiction to levy the tax as the notification specifying the rate at which the tax will be levied was not published, as required by Section 80.
Final Decision: The civil revision petition is dismissed with costs.
Madhavan Nair, J.
1. In this case we are of opinion that the Municipality had no jurisdiction to levy the tax in question since the notification contemplated by Section 80, District Municipalities Act, has not been published by the Municipality. Under this section a notification specifying the rate at which the tax will be levied will have to be published before levying the tax. In the notification, Ex. 2, in this case no specific rate leviable is mentioned. On the other hand it calls for objections. We therefore agree with the lower Court in holding that Ex. 2 cannot be treated as the final notification contemplated by Section 80.
2. As the Municipality had no jurisdiction to levy the tax, the other question raised with reference to the correctness of the decision in the Madura, etc., Devas-thanams v. Madura Municipal Council A.I.R. 1928 Mad. 569 does not arise for consideration.
3. The civil revision petition is dismissed with costs.
