<?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>1973 (2) TMI 9 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8842</link>
    <description>Levy of fees under the Textiles Committee Act was held unenforceable where no standards for the relevant textiles and textile machinery had first been fixed, because the statutory inspection-fee scheme depended on an operative standards-and-inspection framework. The challenge that the charge was really an excise duty was not accepted as the decisive basis for invalidity, since the levy was assessed in the context of Committee services to the industry and the fund had multiple sources. Separate class-wise segregation of levy and expenditure was also held unnecessary, as common testing facilities, staff, and administration made strict compartmentalisation impracticable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 28 Feb 1973 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 16 Jun 2009 11:26:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=47882" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1973 (2) TMI 9 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8842</link>
      <description>Levy of fees under the Textiles Committee Act was held unenforceable where no standards for the relevant textiles and textile machinery had first been fixed, because the statutory inspection-fee scheme depended on an operative standards-and-inspection framework. The challenge that the charge was really an excise duty was not accepted as the decisive basis for invalidity, since the levy was assessed in the context of Committee services to the industry and the fund had multiple sources. Separate class-wise segregation of levy and expenditure was also held unnecessary, as common testing facilities, staff, and administration made strict compartmentalisation impracticable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 28 Feb 1973 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8842</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>