https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281946 The Supreme Court upheld a sugarcane rebate notification treating the deduction for binding material as an ancillary price-control measure under the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966. It held that the power to prescribe such a rebate was not dependent on prior fixation of the minimum sugarcane price and could operate even where price was negotiated. The Court also found that fixation of the rebate at 0.625 kg per quintal was based on long-standing administrative practice and trade data, and was not arbitrary. The notification did not violate Article 19(1)(g) because it imposed a reasonable restriction in the public interest to protect cane growers and prevent unauthorized deductions. en-us Wed, 03 Mar 1982 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 13 Jul 2019 10:19:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281946 The Supreme Court upheld a sugarcane rebate notification treating the deduction for binding material as an ancillary price-control measure under the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966. It held that the power to prescribe such a rebate was not dependent on prior fixation of the minimum sugarcane price and could operate even where price was negotiated. The Court also found that fixation of the rebate at 0.625 kg per quintal was based on long-standing administrative practice and trade data, and was not arbitrary. The notification did not violate Article 19(1)(g) because it imposed a reasonable restriction in the public interest to protect cane growers and prevent unauthorized deductions. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 03 Mar 1982 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281946