<?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>1975 (8) TMI 127 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171224</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court found the notification issued under section 6(5) of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1964, invalid due to non-compliance with the mandatory publication requirement in Gujarati in a newspaper. Consequently, the appellant&#039;s conviction for purchasing ginger without a license was overturned, and the acquittal by the Judicial Magistrate was restored. The Court emphasized the mandatory nature of the publication requirement to ensure public awareness and participation. The prosecution&#039;s conduct and lower courts&#039; approach were criticized for misinterpretation of statutory provisions. The appeal was allowed, and any fines paid were ordered to be refunded to the appellant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Aug 1975 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Jul 2015 11:45:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=390206" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1975 (8) TMI 127 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171224</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court found the notification issued under section 6(5) of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1964, invalid due to non-compliance with the mandatory publication requirement in Gujarati in a newspaper. Consequently, the appellant&#039;s conviction for purchasing ginger without a license was overturned, and the acquittal by the Judicial Magistrate was restored. The Court emphasized the mandatory nature of the publication requirement to ensure public awareness and participation. The prosecution&#039;s conduct and lower courts&#039; approach were criticized for misinterpretation of statutory provisions. The appeal was allowed, and any fines paid were ordered to be refunded to the appellant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Aug 1975 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171224</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>