Doctrine of Ultra Vires Effects and Exceptions - amazonia.fiocruz.br

Doctrine of Ultra Vires Effects and Exceptions - that would

Dear Students,. The assignment has been divided into three sections. Section A Consists of long answer questions for 10 marks each, Section B consists of medium answer questions for 6 marks each and Section C consists of short answer questions for 5 marks each. To be eligible to appear in the Term-end examination, it is compulsory for you to submit the assignment as per the schedule. Before attempting the assignments, you should carefully read the instructions given in the Programme Guide. Those students who are appearing in June Term End Examination they have to submit latest by in 15 March Those students who are appearing in December exams. They should download the new assignment and submit the same latest by 15 October You have to submit the assignment of all the courses to the Coordinator of your Study Centre. Doctrine of Ultra Vires Effects and Exceptions

Doctrine of Ultra Vires Effects and Exceptions Video

DOCTRINE OF ULTRA VIRES -- CONSEQUENCES -- EXCEPTIONS -- COMPANIES ACT 2013--

The recovery of taxes collected under a law which is ultra vires, or on the basis of an incorrect interpretation of law, is a highly debated topic in several jurisdictions. Requests for restitution or refund of such taxes have been deliberated by Courts on the basis of considerations which include mistake of law, chaos in public finances, unjust enrichment and refund being the discretion of the Revenue Department. Restitution claims are also thwarted by enactment of validating laws. At the core of this dispute lie the principles of fairness of the administration, and justice to the affected citizen here was made to pay taxes which were not legally payable.

This article examines the legal position in India and other jurisdictions.

OTHER SERVICES AND BLOGS OF DYNAMIC TUTORIALS AND SERVICES

The power to levy taxes [1] at the hands of monarchs was not limited. The importance of the power to levy is underscored by the fact that the Bill of Rights,provided that the Crown should not levy any tax without the consent of Parliament. The demand for payment of taxes could be tainted in two ways viz. In the former case, there was no authority to demand tax to begin with, and the authority claimed is void ab initio.

In the latter, the authority is valid, but the interpretation placed on the relevant provision of law for demanding the tax is incorrect, and thus the tax was found to not be payable by the subject from whom it was demanded. Simple logical reasoning demands that any tax collected without authority or by a wrong interpretation of the relevant provision of law should be returned to the tax payer. Only when a tax payer chooses to challenge a levy or demand for tax and succeeds, and is determined to take the next logical step of making the demand for refund, will he realise the barriers denying him of the chance to get his refund.

Sometimes, the legislature also decides to throw in its weight by enacting validating laws, complicating the claim for refund. Some of the The Comparison Of Madison Jefferson on which such claims for Doctrine of Ultra Vires Effects and Exceptions could be denied are a payments made under a mistake of law on the part of the payer, b tax liability passed on, c chaos in public finances, and d the validating law has validated collection of the taxes.

Post navigation

There are rules regarding taxes. Lumley [5] wherein the Court held that payments made under mistake of law are not recoverable. The Court based this proposition on the basis that every citizen is expected Viires be aware of his legal obligations, otherwise there is no saying to what extent the excuse of ignorance may be carried. This rule obtained almost universal recognition in that it was followed in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and many American States.

Navigation menu

In USA, Exceptiobs Supreme Court has held that a State must provide procedural safeguards against an unlawful tax exaction because such exaction constitutes a deprivation of property under the Due Process Clause. In Air Canada v. British Columbia[9] La Forest, J. According to him, the rule was rejected as having been constructed on inadequate foundations as lacking in clarity and resulting in undue harshness. The development of the law of restitution had rendered otiose the distinction between mistakes of fact and mistakes of law. In Woolwich Building Society v. Royal Insurance Australia Ltd. In Mafatlal Industries Ltd v. Union of India, [13] the Supreme Court of India referred to the above judgments mainly for the purpose of dealing with the claim for restitution under Section 72 of the Contract Act, In his dissenting opinion, Wilson, J.]