https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289040 The court upheld the validity of Proviso (c) to Section 2(1A) Clause (ii), Section 49, Section 13(1) of Gujarat Act 5 of 1970, and the proviso to Section 129(b). However, Sections 406(2)(e) and 411(bb) were deemed unconstitutional as they created a discriminatory classification for appellants. The resolutions fixing conservancy tax at 9% for certain properties were found to be invalid as they did not align with the guiding principle set by the Legislature. The court ruled that Section 2(1A) Clause (i) was valid for the official year 1969-70 but invalid for earlier years due to violating Article 14. en-us Mon, 04 Dec 1972 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 10 Jul 2020 13:10:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289040 The court upheld the validity of Proviso (c) to Section 2(1A) Clause (ii), Section 49, Section 13(1) of Gujarat Act 5 of 1970, and the proviso to Section 129(b). However, Sections 406(2)(e) and 411(bb) were deemed unconstitutional as they created a discriminatory classification for appellants. The resolutions fixing conservancy tax at 9% for certain properties were found to be invalid as they did not align with the guiding principle set by the Legislature. The court ruled that Section 2(1A) Clause (i) was valid for the official year 1969-70 but invalid for earlier years due to violating Article 14. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 04 Dec 1972 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289040