https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99165 Section 23(1A) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act was upheld as a valid classification under Article 14 because the legislature could distinguish between contraventions routed through departmental adjudication and those sent directly for criminal prosecution. The classification was treated as based on the object of the Act, practical enforcement difficulties, the nature of evidence ordinarily available, and the need for special enforcement machinery in fiscal and regulatory matters. The Court accepted that under-inclusion does not by itself create discrimination where there is a fair and reasonable basis for the distinction. The provision was therefore not discriminatory, and the constitutional challenge failed. en-us Mon, 03 Mar 1975 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 06 Aug 2014 08:44:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99165 Section 23(1A) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act was upheld as a valid classification under Article 14 because the legislature could distinguish between contraventions routed through departmental adjudication and those sent directly for criminal prosecution. The classification was treated as based on the object of the Act, practical enforcement difficulties, the nature of evidence ordinarily available, and the need for special enforcement machinery in fiscal and regulatory matters. The Court accepted that under-inclusion does not by itself create discrimination where there is a fair and reasonable basis for the distinction. The provision was therefore not discriminatory, and the constitutional challenge failed. Case-Laws FEMA Mon, 03 Mar 1975 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99165