https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168750 The article explains that a Mathadhipati's control over Math property is proprietary but not absolute, and remains subject to customary obligations of administration. It states that provisions requiring removal for waste or diversion of funds, and requiring accounts of pathakanikas and their application according to institutional custom, are treated as valid regulatory measures rather than unconstitutional restraints. It also notes that the levy under the amended scheme is characterised as a fee because it is earmarked for services to religious institutions, credited to a separate fund, and correlated to service cost; on that basis, retrospective validation of earlier collections is described as competent. en-us Tue, 20 Nov 1962 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 09 Jun 2015 14:10:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168750 The article explains that a Mathadhipati's control over Math property is proprietary but not absolute, and remains subject to customary obligations of administration. It states that provisions requiring removal for waste or diversion of funds, and requiring accounts of pathakanikas and their application according to institutional custom, are treated as valid regulatory measures rather than unconstitutional restraints. It also notes that the levy under the amended scheme is characterised as a fee because it is earmarked for services to religious institutions, credited to a separate fund, and correlated to service cost; on that basis, retrospective validation of earlier collections is described as competent. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 20 Nov 1962 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168750