<?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>1971 (9) TMI 188 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195596</link>
    <description>Clause 5(iii) of the Andhra Pradesh Coarse Grains (Export Control) Order, 1965 was found to exceed the delegated power under section 3(2)(j) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 because it authorised seizure on mere suspicion rather than on the statutory standard of reason to believe that a contravention had been, was being, or was about to be committed. The court treated that safeguard as a protection against arbitrary interference with property rights and held that delegated legislation cannot enlarge the parent Act&#039;s power or dilute the statutory threshold. The seizure made under the clause was therefore illegal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 Sep 1971 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 04 Nov 2017 18:18:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=494757" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1971 (9) TMI 188 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195596</link>
      <description>Clause 5(iii) of the Andhra Pradesh Coarse Grains (Export Control) Order, 1965 was found to exceed the delegated power under section 3(2)(j) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 because it authorised seizure on mere suspicion rather than on the statutory standard of reason to believe that a contravention had been, was being, or was about to be committed. The court treated that safeguard as a protection against arbitrary interference with property rights and held that delegated legislation cannot enlarge the parent Act&#039;s power or dilute the statutory threshold. The seizure made under the clause was therefore illegal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Sep 1971 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195596</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>