1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Supreme Court Upholds Rights, Advises Government on Levy, Price Control</h1> The Supreme Court found no violation of the petitioners' fundamental rights under Art. 19(1)(g) or applicability of Art. 14. It suggested the Government ... - Issues involved: Violation of fundamental rights under Art. 19(1)(g) and applicability of Art. 14 to the impugned orders.Summary:The Supreme Court, after hearing extensive arguments, concluded that there was no violation of the petitioners' fundamental rights under Art. 19(1)(g) or applicability of Art. 14 to the case. The Court suggested that the Government may consider measures to soften the impact of the impugned orders, even though they were not found to be arbitrary or excessive. Regarding the retrospective operation of the levy on khandsari production, the Court rejected the argument that it should only apply to sugar produced after the notification, emphasizing that once the levy notification was issued, it would apply to all stock, regardless of when it was manufactured. The Court cited precedent to support this interpretation.In terms of the price control of levy sugar, the Court held that the government's objective of equitable distribution and fair pricing for consumer benefit outweighed individual interests. The Court emphasized that even if the petitioners incurred losses, the restrictions imposed were not unreasonable, citing previous judgments to support this stance.The Court acknowledged the arbitrariness of certain clauses in the impugned notifications but noted that the Attorney General assured that these clauses would be reviewed to prevent inconvenience to the petitioners. The Court allowed the stay on the petitions to continue until these clauses were withdrawn, emphasizing the need for proper storage and distribution of the levied sugar.Additionally, the Court recommended that the Government provide a minimum hearing to representatives of cane crushers before fixing levy rates to prevent significant losses to the crusher owners. The petitions were ultimately dismissed with these observations.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
