https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290875 A pre-Constitution marketing statute regulating commercial crops was upheld as a reasonable restriction in the interests of the general public under Article 19(6). The levy under Section 11 was treated as a tax in substance, but the explanation was viewed as a rule of evidence rather than a levy on inter-State sales, so the challenges under Article 286(2), Article 301, and Article 305 failed. The Article 14 challenge also failed because the exemptions and area-based notifications were linked to the legislative object. Only the Collector's uncanalised discretion to refuse licences under Section 5(4)(a) and the Rule 37 bar on unregistered persons carrying on business were struck down to that limited extent. en-us Fri, 10 Jul 1953 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 20 Oct 2020 11:54:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290875 A pre-Constitution marketing statute regulating commercial crops was upheld as a reasonable restriction in the interests of the general public under Article 19(6). The levy under Section 11 was treated as a tax in substance, but the explanation was viewed as a rule of evidence rather than a levy on inter-State sales, so the challenges under Article 286(2), Article 301, and Article 305 failed. The Article 14 challenge also failed because the exemptions and area-based notifications were linked to the legislative object. Only the Collector's uncanalised discretion to refuse licences under Section 5(4)(a) and the Rule 37 bar on unregistered persons carrying on business were struck down to that limited extent. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 10 Jul 1953 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290875