https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168752 The Commissioner's authority under the States Reorganisation Act was sustained because the notification empowering him to perform functions under the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 remained effective, and the statutory power to issue directions did not make that authority dependent on prior directions. The contribution under section 76(1) was upheld because a fee requires only a fair and reasonable correlation between the levy and the cost of services rendered to the class of payers, not exact arithmetic equivalence, and the record showed broad correspondence. The article 14 challenge to continued application of the Act in South Kanara also failed, as mere continuance of pre-existing law in a reorganised area did not by itself establish discrimination. en-us Mon, 27 Aug 1979 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 25 Mar 2015 14:47:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168752 The Commissioner's authority under the States Reorganisation Act was sustained because the notification empowering him to perform functions under the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 remained effective, and the statutory power to issue directions did not make that authority dependent on prior directions. The contribution under section 76(1) was upheld because a fee requires only a fair and reasonable correlation between the levy and the cost of services rendered to the class of payers, not exact arithmetic equivalence, and the record showed broad correspondence. The article 14 challenge to continued application of the Act in South Kanara also failed, as mere continuance of pre-existing law in a reorganised area did not by itself establish discrimination. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 27 Aug 1979 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168752