<?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>2014 (5) TMI 176 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247249</link>
    <description>A Government scheme exempting high-speed diesel for fishermen through both Government and authorised private outlets could not be narrowed by memo or committee recommendation. Administrative restrictions that were not contemplated by the Government Orders, and that favoured Government-controlled outlets without evidence of misuse or any rational basis, were treated as arbitrary and discriminatory. The writ court could intervene because the added conditions exceeded the scheme, lacked a valid classification, and defeated the intended benefit to fishermen. The private dealers&#039; challenge was therefore sustained and the State&#039;s appeals failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 26 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 11 Jul 2014 14:53:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=354909" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (5) TMI 176 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247249</link>
      <description>A Government scheme exempting high-speed diesel for fishermen through both Government and authorised private outlets could not be narrowed by memo or committee recommendation. Administrative restrictions that were not contemplated by the Government Orders, and that favoured Government-controlled outlets without evidence of misuse or any rational basis, were treated as arbitrary and discriminatory. The writ court could intervene because the added conditions exceeded the scheme, lacked a valid classification, and defeated the intended benefit to fishermen. The private dealers&#039; challenge was therefore sustained and the State&#039;s appeals failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247249</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>