https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=177398 Section 33 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, together with the verification requirement under Section 24, was upheld as a regulatory measure enacted in public interest to secure standardisation of weights and measures before market use. Applying the presumption of constitutionality and the test of reasonable restriction under Article 19(6), the Court found that hardship alone could not invalidate the scheme, and that the classification had a rational nexus with consumer protection and uniform application. Reading Sections 24, 27, 2(b) and 2(r) together, the Court also held that a manufacturer falls within the statutory scheme as a dealer when selling or supplying goods, and may attract the verification duty and Section 33 consequences. en-us Thu, 20 Dec 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 08 Jan 2016 14:31:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=177398 Section 33 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, together with the verification requirement under Section 24, was upheld as a regulatory measure enacted in public interest to secure standardisation of weights and measures before market use. Applying the presumption of constitutionality and the test of reasonable restriction under Article 19(6), the Court found that hardship alone could not invalidate the scheme, and that the classification had a rational nexus with consumer protection and uniform application. Reading Sections 24, 27, 2(b) and 2(r) together, the Court also held that a manufacturer falls within the statutory scheme as a dealer when selling or supplying goods, and may attract the verification duty and Section 33 consequences. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 20 Dec 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=177398