https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200683 Section 34(1)(c) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 was upheld as a valid taxing provision. The challenge to Parliament's legislative competence was not pressed and, in any event, the provision was treated as falling within the taxing power. The article 19(1)(f) objection failed because that clause had been deleted by the Forty-fourth Amendment and did not confer immunity from taxation. On article 14, the Court held that fiscal statutes permit wide classification and that aggregation of lineal descendants' interests for rate purposes had an intelligible differentia and rational nexus with the Act's object. The constitutional challenge therefore failed and the levy was sustained. en-us Thu, 22 Nov 1984 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 12 Apr 2018 18:54:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200683 Section 34(1)(c) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 was upheld as a valid taxing provision. The challenge to Parliament's legislative competence was not pressed and, in any event, the provision was treated as falling within the taxing power. The article 19(1)(f) objection failed because that clause had been deleted by the Forty-fourth Amendment and did not confer immunity from taxation. On article 14, the Court held that fiscal statutes permit wide classification and that aggregation of lineal descendants' interests for rate purposes had an intelligible differentia and rational nexus with the Act's object. The constitutional challenge therefore failed and the levy was sustained. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 22 Nov 1984 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200683