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

1969 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 8

MYSORE HIGH COURT
*M. Sadasivayya, D. M. Chandrashekar, JJ.
Parekh M. v. State


1. The Corporation of the City of Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) who is the contesting respondent in all these petitions, issued a notification as per Exhibit A dated 4-4-1967, in which it was stated that the Administrator of the Corporation, exercising the powers of the Standing Committee (Taxation and Finance) and the Corporation and in exercise of the powers under S.130 of the City of Bangalore Municipal Corporation Act, had decided that the Articles noted in the Schedule of the notification should be subjected to levy of octroi at the rates noted against each with effect from the 1st day of May, 1967, the said articles being included under Clause VIII, Part V, Schedule III of the City of Bangalore Municipal Corporation Act, 1949. In the Schedule of that Notification, 48 items of goods, together with the rates of octroi imposed on them, have been specified. The petitioners in these writ petitions are all dealers in one or more of the articles specified in that schedule. In these writ petitions, they have challenged the validity of the levy of Octroi and have prayed that the Corporation be restrained from collecting Octroi under the said notification.
The m












































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