https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182049 A market regulation notification fixing maximum fees was upheld because it did not itself levy fees and any misuse would arise from the bye-law, not the notification. Section 29-B was treated as a valid curative and validating provision, deeming markets established from the relevant date and validating past fee collection and licences without requiring retrospective textual amendment of the original provisions. The A and B class trader classification, the licensing scheme, and the amended Act were held to have a rational regulatory basis and not to violate Articles 14 or 19(1)(g). Rules 65, 66 and 67 were held to revive under the doctrine of eclipse, and section 29-B(3) was upheld against the refund challenge. en-us Thu, 15 Mar 1962 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 30 Apr 2016 16:00:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182049 A market regulation notification fixing maximum fees was upheld because it did not itself levy fees and any misuse would arise from the bye-law, not the notification. Section 29-B was treated as a valid curative and validating provision, deeming markets established from the relevant date and validating past fee collection and licences without requiring retrospective textual amendment of the original provisions. The A and B class trader classification, the licensing scheme, and the amended Act were held to have a rational regulatory basis and not to violate Articles 14 or 19(1)(g). Rules 65, 66 and 67 were held to revive under the doctrine of eclipse, and section 29-B(3) was upheld against the refund challenge. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 15 Mar 1962 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182049