<?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>1957 (2) TMI 55 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162341</link>
    <description>Section 3 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 was construed to authorise the Central Government to prohibit, restrict or otherwise control imports of goods of any specified description, and that power was held to extend to soda ash; the confiscation challenge on the basis that no licence was required therefore failed. The Court also upheld the provision against the attack that it was invalid delegated legislation, holding that the Act and its legislative background sufficiently disclosed the policy of maintaining control over essential supplies. Finally, the finding that the petitioner was trafficking in import licences was sustained because there was some legal evidence, and such factual conclusions were not open to reappraisal in writ proceedings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 21 Feb 1957 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 08 Sep 2014 09:53:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=347107" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1957 (2) TMI 55 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162341</link>
      <description>Section 3 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 was construed to authorise the Central Government to prohibit, restrict or otherwise control imports of goods of any specified description, and that power was held to extend to soda ash; the confiscation challenge on the basis that no licence was required therefore failed. The Court also upheld the provision against the attack that it was invalid delegated legislation, holding that the Act and its legislative background sufficiently disclosed the policy of maintaining control over essential supplies. Finally, the finding that the petitioner was trafficking in import licences was sustained because there was some legal evidence, and such factual conclusions were not open to reappraisal in writ proceedings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 Feb 1957 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162341</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>