<?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>2004 (7) TMI 654 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182011</link>
    <description>The Employees State Insurance Act was held applicable to a race club of the kind in question because the club failed to produce material rebutting the authorities&#039; factual finding, and the inspection report remained unchallenged. On that basis, the establishment fell within the statutory definition. Liability for contributions was then confined to the period from 1987 onwards, because the legal position on club coverage had remained uncertain for a substantial time and the enforcing authority had not taken coercive action for many years. In these peculiar facts, insisting on contribution from the earlier period was treated as unreasonable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 28 Jul 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 29 Apr 2016 16:36:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=426074" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (7) TMI 654 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182011</link>
      <description>The Employees State Insurance Act was held applicable to a race club of the kind in question because the club failed to produce material rebutting the authorities&#039; factual finding, and the inspection report remained unchallenged. On that basis, the establishment fell within the statutory definition. Liability for contributions was then confined to the period from 1987 onwards, because the legal position on club coverage had remained uncertain for a substantial time and the enforcing authority had not taken coercive action for many years. In these peculiar facts, insisting on contribution from the earlier period was treated as unreasonable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 28 Jul 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182011</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>