<?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>1983 (5) TMI 262 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190952</link>
    <description>Amended land revenue rules fixing non-agricultural assessment by reference to population, with prescribed minimum and maximum rates, were treated as valid because the parent enactments formed a complete code, the assessment was tied to land use, profit derived and locality, and appellate and revisional safeguards limited discretion. The Court&#039;s reasoning rejected claims of excessive delegation and arbitrariness under Article 14, holding that objective rate bands and guiding criteria provided an intelligible basis for classification. It also treated the absence of prior notice before the levy as insufficient to invalidate the demand where the statute and rules allowed objection, appeal and revision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 06 May 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Mar 2017 18:13:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=460927" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1983 (5) TMI 262 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190952</link>
      <description>Amended land revenue rules fixing non-agricultural assessment by reference to population, with prescribed minimum and maximum rates, were treated as valid because the parent enactments formed a complete code, the assessment was tied to land use, profit derived and locality, and appellate and revisional safeguards limited discretion. The Court&#039;s reasoning rejected claims of excessive delegation and arbitrariness under Article 14, holding that objective rate bands and guiding criteria provided an intelligible basis for classification. It also treated the absence of prior notice before the levy as insufficient to invalidate the demand where the statute and rules allowed objection, appeal and revision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 May 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190952</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>