<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1990 (3) TMI 323 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151734</link>
    <description>The challenge to the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961, based on legislative competence, constitutional violations, and inclusion of manufactured articles was addressed in Writ Petition No. 1555 of 1979. Despite arguments against the Act&#039;s market fee imposition on agricultural produce sales, the Court upheld the Act&#039;s validity. It found the State&#039;s power to define agricultural produce broadly, encompassing items beyond soil-based products, and deemed the Act&#039;s provisions lawful. The Court dismissed the petitions, citing no conflict with Central legislation and the Act&#039;s compliance with Article 254(2) after receiving presidential approval.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 23 Mar 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Jan 2014 17:11:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=168772" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (3) TMI 323 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151734</link>
      <description>The challenge to the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961, based on legislative competence, constitutional violations, and inclusion of manufactured articles was addressed in Writ Petition No. 1555 of 1979. Despite arguments against the Act&#039;s market fee imposition on agricultural produce sales, the Court upheld the Act&#039;s validity. It found the State&#039;s power to define agricultural produce broadly, encompassing items beyond soil-based products, and deemed the Act&#039;s provisions lawful. The Court dismissed the petitions, citing no conflict with Central legislation and the Act&#039;s compliance with Article 254(2) after receiving presidential approval.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 Mar 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151734</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>