<?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>2014 (12) TMI 1342 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280004</link>
    <description>Section 48(7) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code applies only where ordinary earth is extracted or removed without lawful authority and for a use covered by the statutory notification treating it as a minor mineral. Excavation for laying building foundations was held not to attract penalty merely because earth was dug up, since liability depends on the end use and not the act of excavation alone. Excavation by the Nuclear Power Corporation for widening a water channel in aid of the land grant was likewise treated as incidental to the permitted use and not a notified mineral use, so the penalty could not stand. The constitutional challenge was left open.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 03 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 16 Apr 2019 14:34:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=567010" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (12) TMI 1342 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280004</link>
      <description>Section 48(7) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code applies only where ordinary earth is extracted or removed without lawful authority and for a use covered by the statutory notification treating it as a minor mineral. Excavation for laying building foundations was held not to attract penalty merely because earth was dug up, since liability depends on the end use and not the act of excavation alone. Excavation by the Nuclear Power Corporation for widening a water channel in aid of the land grant was likewise treated as incidental to the permitted use and not a notified mineral use, so the penalty could not stand. The constitutional challenge was left open.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280004</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>