<?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>1985 (2) TMI 311 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275544</link>
    <description>Chapter V-A of the Employees&#039; State Insurance Act, 1948, imposing special employer contribution during the transitory period, was upheld as a social welfare levy within the legislative field of social security and labour welfare under Entries 23 and 24 of List III. The Court held that it was unnecessary to justify the impost as a tax or fee under other entries, and that the contribution could still be sustained even if viewed as a fee. The absence of immediate contemporaneous benefit did not negate quid pro quo, because the scheme contemplated phased implementation and the fund was being built for eventual insurance benefits and medical services. The challenge to its validity was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 28 Feb 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 30 Jan 2020 11:28:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=537318" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1985 (2) TMI 311 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275544</link>
      <description>Chapter V-A of the Employees&#039; State Insurance Act, 1948, imposing special employer contribution during the transitory period, was upheld as a social welfare levy within the legislative field of social security and labour welfare under Entries 23 and 24 of List III. The Court held that it was unnecessary to justify the impost as a tax or fee under other entries, and that the contribution could still be sustained even if viewed as a fee. The absence of immediate contemporaneous benefit did not negate quid pro quo, because the scheme contemplated phased implementation and the fund was being built for eventual insurance benefits and medical services. The challenge to its validity was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Feb 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275544</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>