https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=178177 The Supreme Court found no violation of the petitioners' fundamental rights under Art. 19(1)(g) or applicability of Art. 14. It suggested the Government consider measures to soften the impact of impugned orders. The Court rejected the argument for retrospective operation of the levy on khandsari production, emphasizing it applied to all stock. Regarding price control of levy sugar, the Court prioritized equitable distribution over individual interests. Acknowledging arbitrariness in impugned notifications, the Court allowed a stay until clauses were reviewed. It recommended a minimum hearing for cane crusher representatives before fixing levy rates. The petitions were dismissed with these observations. en-us Fri, 27 Feb 1981 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 29 Jan 2016 14:33:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=178177 The Supreme Court found no violation of the petitioners' fundamental rights under Art. 19(1)(g) or applicability of Art. 14. It suggested the Government consider measures to soften the impact of impugned orders. The Court rejected the argument for retrospective operation of the levy on khandsari production, emphasizing it applied to all stock. Regarding price control of levy sugar, the Court prioritized equitable distribution over individual interests. Acknowledging arbitrariness in impugned notifications, the Court allowed a stay until clauses were reviewed. It recommended a minimum hearing for cane crusher representatives before fixing levy rates. The petitions were dismissed with these observations. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 27 Feb 1981 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=178177