<?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>2001 (12) TMI 862 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165452</link>
    <description>Under the Bihar Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1960, a market-area notification was valid where the statutory procedure was followed and the area was not shown to be so wide as to make effective regulation impossible. A valid market was established because the Act contemplated an integrated scheme of notification, constitution of the committee, and final fixation of the market proper and yards, without requiring any separate physical site. Market fee and licence fee were upheld as valid regulatory levies supported by services and facilities, with sufficient quid pro quo and no unconstitutionally excessive burden. Phased implementation in Gaya and Barh did not violate Article 14 because the State was entitled to introduce the scheme gradually.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 03 Dec 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 15 Jul 2014 11:10:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=359613" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (12) TMI 862 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165452</link>
      <description>Under the Bihar Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1960, a market-area notification was valid where the statutory procedure was followed and the area was not shown to be so wide as to make effective regulation impossible. A valid market was established because the Act contemplated an integrated scheme of notification, constitution of the committee, and final fixation of the market proper and yards, without requiring any separate physical site. Market fee and licence fee were upheld as valid regulatory levies supported by services and facilities, with sufficient quid pro quo and no unconstitutionally excessive burden. Phased implementation in Gaya and Barh did not violate Article 14 because the State was entitled to introduce the scheme gradually.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 03 Dec 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165452</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>