<?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>1996 (7) TMI 554 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169576</link>
    <description>Parliament may retrospectively validate and itself enact cesses and taxes on minerals earlier imposed by incompetent State legislation, provided the validating law cures the legislative defect within Parliament&#039;s competence. The statute was read as creating the levy for the relevant period by deeming the scheduled provisions to have been enacted by Parliament and to have remained in force up to 4 April 1991, so validation was not confined to amounts already collected; recovery of unpaid dues was also permissible. The differential State-wise rates did not offend Article 14 because they reflected the historical pattern of the earlier levies. The Act was not a temporary statute, and the recovery machinery continued to operate for liabilities arising under the validated levy.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 26 Jul 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 27 Apr 2015 10:30:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=383073" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (7) TMI 554 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169576</link>
      <description>Parliament may retrospectively validate and itself enact cesses and taxes on minerals earlier imposed by incompetent State legislation, provided the validating law cures the legislative defect within Parliament&#039;s competence. The statute was read as creating the levy for the relevant period by deeming the scheduled provisions to have been enacted by Parliament and to have remained in force up to 4 April 1991, so validation was not confined to amounts already collected; recovery of unpaid dues was also permissible. The differential State-wise rates did not offend Article 14 because they reflected the historical pattern of the earlier levies. The Act was not a temporary statute, and the recovery machinery continued to operate for liabilities arising under the validated levy.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 Jul 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169576</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>