<?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>2009 (1) TMI 521 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208286</link>
    <description>Section 1(3)(d) of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 was construed as not requiring a separate notification for each class of goods before the packaged commodities regime could operate; the notification bringing the relevant provisions into force was sufficient, and the rules remained applicable. Shoes packed in cartons for retail sale were treated as pre-packed commodities under the Act and Packaged Commodities Rules, 1977, so the declaration requirements, including retail sale price, applied. Harmonious construction of the Act and Rules supported consumer protection and standardised retail pricing, and the absence of price-inclusive declarations made the challenge fail.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 31 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 05 Jan 2012 12:25:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=181757" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (1) TMI 521 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208286</link>
      <description>Section 1(3)(d) of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 was construed as not requiring a separate notification for each class of goods before the packaged commodities regime could operate; the notification bringing the relevant provisions into force was sufficient, and the rules remained applicable. Shoes packed in cartons for retail sale were treated as pre-packed commodities under the Act and Packaged Commodities Rules, 1977, so the declaration requirements, including retail sale price, applied. Harmonious construction of the Act and Rules supported consumer protection and standardised retail pricing, and the absence of price-inclusive declarations made the challenge fail.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 31 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208286</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>