<?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 (7) TMI 1277 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169578</link>
    <description>A validating statute that gives temporary retrospective life to void mineral cess laws was confined to protecting past collections and preventing refunds; it did not authorise fresh levy or recovery after 4.4.1991 for earlier liabilities. Reading the Act with its objects, preamble and the absence of any saving clause, the Court treated section 2(2) as a refund-protection measure and section 2(3) as narrow and non-substantive. Article 265 required authority of law for every levy and collection, and once the deeming fiction ended on the cut-off date, no further taxing power remained. The Act was upheld only to the extent it barred refund of sums already collected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 31 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 24 Dec 2025 15:25:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=383074" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (7) TMI 1277 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169578</link>
      <description>A validating statute that gives temporary retrospective life to void mineral cess laws was confined to protecting past collections and preventing refunds; it did not authorise fresh levy or recovery after 4.4.1991 for earlier liabilities. Reading the Act with its objects, preamble and the absence of any saving clause, the Court treated section 2(2) as a refund-protection measure and section 2(3) as narrow and non-substantive. Article 265 required authority of law for every levy and collection, and once the deeming fiction ended on the cut-off date, no further taxing power remained. The Act was upheld only to the extent it barred refund of sums already collected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 31 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169578</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>