<?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>1995 (1) TMI 390 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173507</link>
    <description>In taxation, a classification under assessment rules will not be struck down merely because a finer or more detailed sub-classification could have been made. The SC held that the grouping of holdings by situation, use and type of construction under the 1993 Rules did not violate Article 14, since fiscal legislation enjoys wide latitude and is invalid only for hostile discrimination or manifest arbitrariness. It further held that notifications fixing road categories and rental values to implement a uniform assessment scheme were valid, as they reduced discretion and a single instance of hardship could not invalidate the scheme as a whole.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 16 Jan 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 Sep 2015 11:17:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=397690" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (1) TMI 390 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173507</link>
      <description>In taxation, a classification under assessment rules will not be struck down merely because a finer or more detailed sub-classification could have been made. The SC held that the grouping of holdings by situation, use and type of construction under the 1993 Rules did not violate Article 14, since fiscal legislation enjoys wide latitude and is invalid only for hostile discrimination or manifest arbitrariness. It further held that notifications fixing road categories and rental values to implement a uniform assessment scheme were valid, as they reduced discretion and a single instance of hardship could not invalidate the scheme as a whole.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 16 Jan 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173507</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>