<?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>1952 (5) TMI 22 - PATNA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192822</link>
    <description>The Bihar Finance Act, 1950 was treated as a valid State tax on passengers and goods carried by motor vehicles, with fares and freights serving only as the measure of the levy. On that basis, the levy fell within Entry 56 of List II and was within legislative competence; the absence of an express collection provision did not invalidate the scheme because collection powers were implied from the charging and machinery provisions. The Act was also held not to violate fundamental rights or Part XIII, since its burdens on transport operators were incidental to a revenue measure and did not directly restrict trade. The delegation challenge likewise failed because the prescribed and appellate authorities formed administrative machinery, not an abdication of legislative power.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 08 May 1952 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 22 Jun 2017 18:47:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=474435" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1952 (5) TMI 22 - PATNA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192822</link>
      <description>The Bihar Finance Act, 1950 was treated as a valid State tax on passengers and goods carried by motor vehicles, with fares and freights serving only as the measure of the levy. On that basis, the levy fell within Entry 56 of List II and was within legislative competence; the absence of an express collection provision did not invalidate the scheme because collection powers were implied from the charging and machinery provisions. The Act was also held not to violate fundamental rights or Part XIII, since its burdens on transport operators were incidental to a revenue measure and did not directly restrict trade. The delegation challenge likewise failed because the prescribed and appellate authorities formed administrative machinery, not an abdication of legislative power.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 May 1952 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192822</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>