<?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>2012 (7) TMI 498 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=214928</link>
    <description>A statute that clearly sets out a regulatory policy and framework can validly authorise Government to fix licence fees without offending the rule against excessive delegation. The delegation was upheld because the Act prescribed licensing conditions, penalties and rule-making machinery for regulating horse-racing, making the fee-fixing power part of implementation rather than an unguided levy. The enhanced licence fee was also upheld as a regulatory fee, not a tax, because it supported supervision, inspection and enforcement of the licensing regime. Strict quid pro quo was not required; only a broad, reasonable correlation and non-excessiveness were necessary.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 Nov 2016 15:34:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=188319" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (7) TMI 498 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=214928</link>
      <description>A statute that clearly sets out a regulatory policy and framework can validly authorise Government to fix licence fees without offending the rule against excessive delegation. The delegation was upheld because the Act prescribed licensing conditions, penalties and rule-making machinery for regulating horse-racing, making the fee-fixing power part of implementation rather than an unguided levy. The enhanced licence fee was also upheld as a regulatory fee, not a tax, because it supported supervision, inspection and enforcement of the licensing regime. Strict quid pro quo was not required; only a broad, reasonable correlation and non-excessiveness were necessary.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=214928</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>