https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191179 The Supreme Court noted that section 3(3-C) of the Essential Commodities Act and clause 5A of the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966 must be read together for levy sugar price fixation. The producer's liability to pay additional cane price under clause 5A was a relevant component of the cost structure and could not be excluded when refixing prices. The Government's attempt to justify later notifications by relying on the producer's retained share in extra realisation, rather than the statutory clause 5A liability, was found untenable for this purpose. Excluding that liability was therefore inconsistent with the binding directions already issued. en-us Tue, 28 Jan 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 23 Mar 2017 14:24:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191179 The Supreme Court noted that section 3(3-C) of the Essential Commodities Act and clause 5A of the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966 must be read together for levy sugar price fixation. The producer's liability to pay additional cane price under clause 5A was a relevant component of the cost structure and could not be excluded when refixing prices. The Government's attempt to justify later notifications by relying on the producer's retained share in extra realisation, rather than the statutory clause 5A liability, was found untenable for this purpose. Excluding that liability was therefore inconsistent with the binding directions already issued. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 28 Jan 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191179