<?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>1995 (10) TMI 240 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285849</link>
    <description>The Full Bench held that the State Legislature was competent to enact the U.P. Sheera Niyantran Adhiniyam 1964, regulating molasses under Entry 33 of List III despite Section 18G of the IDR Act. The Court upheld the Adhiniyam&#039;s validity, emphasizing federal principles and concurrent legislative authority, subject to the President&#039;s assent.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Oct 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 30 Jan 2020 11:26:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=601870" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (10) TMI 240 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285849</link>
      <description>The Full Bench held that the State Legislature was competent to enact the U.P. Sheera Niyantran Adhiniyam 1964, regulating molasses under Entry 33 of List III despite Section 18G of the IDR Act. The Court upheld the Adhiniyam&#039;s validity, emphasizing federal principles and concurrent legislative authority, subject to the President&#039;s assent.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Oct 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285849</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>