https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291140 The commentary explains that the head of a mutt and the podu dikshitars were treated as having protected proprietary and denominational interests in temple or mutt property and administration under Articles 19(1)(f) and 26. It states that statutory control provisions, including broad supervisory powers, schemes, and appointment of executive officers or managers, were viewed as going beyond permissible regulation and as substantially displacing religious and denominational management, making them unconstitutional in their application to the institution. It further notes that the contribution under Section 76 was characterised as a tax, not a fee, because it funded governmental supervision of religious institutions, and was therefore held to offend Article 27. en-us Thu, 13 Dec 1951 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 02 Nov 2020 11:29:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291140 The commentary explains that the head of a mutt and the podu dikshitars were treated as having protected proprietary and denominational interests in temple or mutt property and administration under Articles 19(1)(f) and 26. It states that statutory control provisions, including broad supervisory powers, schemes, and appointment of executive officers or managers, were viewed as going beyond permissible regulation and as substantially displacing religious and denominational management, making them unconstitutional in their application to the institution. It further notes that the contribution under Section 76 was characterised as a tax, not a fee, because it funded governmental supervision of religious institutions, and was therefore held to offend Article 27. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 13 Dec 1951 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291140