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

1931 Supreme(Mad) 205

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Madhavan Nair, J.
Municipal Council
Versus
Kashi Munuswami Mudaliar
Decided On : 02.09.1931

The court emphasized the requirement of a published notification specifying the rate at which the tax will be levied, as mandated by Section 80 of the District Municipalities Act.

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.

JUDGMENT

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.

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 Back to top