https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174036 The State could not impose export duty on timber and firewood under the Transit Rules because the Indian Forest Act reserved duty on forest produce to the Central Government, so the levy under sub-rule (5) was invalid. The application fee and licence fee were upheld as regulatory fees under the Act; direct quid pro quo was not required for such fees, and they were linked to transit control. The export restriction under sub-rule (8) was also valid because the regulatory power under the Act could include prohibitory measures necessary to protect forest wealth, and the challenge under Articles 301 and 304(b) failed. en-us Thu, 13 Feb 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 28 Sep 2015 17:26:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174036 The State could not impose export duty on timber and firewood under the Transit Rules because the Indian Forest Act reserved duty on forest produce to the Central Government, so the levy under sub-rule (5) was invalid. The application fee and licence fee were upheld as regulatory fees under the Act; direct quid pro quo was not required for such fees, and they were linked to transit control. The export restriction under sub-rule (8) was also valid because the regulatory power under the Act could include prohibitory measures necessary to protect forest wealth, and the challenge under Articles 301 and 304(b) failed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 13 Feb 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174036