https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168587 The Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 was treated as containing sufficient machinery for assessment and adjudication of market-fee disputes through revisional powers, delegation provisions and supporting rules, so the challenge for want of procedure failed. The statutory presumption under the Explanation to Section 17(iii) was held rebuttable only by clear and convincing evidence, not by weak material or a mere balance of probabilities, because the nature of the transaction lay within the traders' special knowledge. Concurrent findings rejecting stock transfer and refund claims were left undisturbed, as they disclosed no perversity, legal error or other ground warranting judicial review. en-us Fri, 23 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 28 Mar 2016 10:54:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168587 The Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 was treated as containing sufficient machinery for assessment and adjudication of market-fee disputes through revisional powers, delegation provisions and supporting rules, so the challenge for want of procedure failed. The statutory presumption under the Explanation to Section 17(iii) was held rebuttable only by clear and convincing evidence, not by weak material or a mere balance of probabilities, because the nature of the transaction lay within the traders' special knowledge. Concurrent findings rejecting stock transfer and refund claims were left undisturbed, as they disclosed no perversity, legal error or other ground warranting judicial review. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 23 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168587