In a second appeal regarding tax suit maintainability, the High Court dismissed the appeal holding that no substantial question of law arose, despite the lower courts rejecting Section 172 bar based on illegal retrospective tax imposition.
The second appeal stands dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1 sa 218.88
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
SECOND APPEAL NO. 218 OF 1988
Municipal Corporation of City of Aurangabad through it's Administrator, Aurangabad .. Appellant
Versus
Mohan Shriniwasrao Mohalkar, Age : 48 Years, Occu. : Service, R/o 5-10-5, Railway Station Road, Aurangabad. .. Respondent
Shri M. D. Joshi, Advocate for the Appellant.
CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 12TH JUNE, 2012.
JUDGMENT :
to consider the view taken by the Honourable
2 sa 218.88
Supreme Court and this Honourable High Court.
the limitation prescribed by law.
3 sa 218.88
procedure has been properly followed. The Courts below have not considered these aspects. The learned counsel contends that as all the acts have been legally done, Sec. 172 would operate and the suit would not be maintainable.
4 sa 218.88
Sd/-
[ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ]
bsb/June 12
2 issues framed by the court
Whether Section 172 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils Act bars a suit challenging tax imposition.
Whether the Maintenance of Court (Certificates of Suit Maintainability) Rules, 1963 mandate substantive examination of new facts in a second appeal.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Municipal Corporation of City of Aurangabad
Mohan Shriniwasrao Mohalkar
S. V. Gangapurwala
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
