https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105363 State legislation was not repugnant to the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 merely because both operated in the dairy sector; actual inconsistency with a Central enactment was required, and none was shown. The cess on milk plants based on licensed capacity was arbitrary and discriminatory because it taxed installed capacity rather than actual production or use, imposed a burden on a limited class of units, and lacked a rational nexus with the object of the law. The court declined to read down the levy after its abolition. The challenge on occupied field failed, the cess was not sustained, and the question whether the impost was a tax or a fee remained open. en-us Fri, 20 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 08 Jul 2014 12:05:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105363 State legislation was not repugnant to the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 merely because both operated in the dairy sector; actual inconsistency with a Central enactment was required, and none was shown. The cess on milk plants based on licensed capacity was arbitrary and discriminatory because it taxed installed capacity rather than actual production or use, imposed a burden on a limited class of units, and lacked a rational nexus with the object of the law. The court declined to read down the levy after its abolition. The challenge on occupied field failed, the cess was not sustained, and the question whether the impost was a tax or a fee remained open. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 20 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105363