<?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>1959 (1) TMI 37 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292112</link>
    <description>Price control of essential commodities is valid where the statute authorises regulation of supply and distribution and the prescribed pricing factors are considered. The Court stated that Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act and Clause 5 of the Sugar (Control) Order permitted fixation of ex-factory sugar prices by reference to relevant costs, taxes, profit and incidental charges, and that control need not be confined to retail prices. It further noted that the notification was not shown to be below cost or arbitrary, so no unreasonable restriction on trade under Article 19(1)(g) was established. Regional control was also upheld because the classification had a rational basis in the structure of the sugar market.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 23 Jan 1959 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 07 Dec 2020 14:57:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=629612" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1959 (1) TMI 37 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292112</link>
      <description>Price control of essential commodities is valid where the statute authorises regulation of supply and distribution and the prescribed pricing factors are considered. The Court stated that Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act and Clause 5 of the Sugar (Control) Order permitted fixation of ex-factory sugar prices by reference to relevant costs, taxes, profit and incidental charges, and that control need not be confined to retail prices. It further noted that the notification was not shown to be below cost or arbitrary, so no unreasonable restriction on trade under Article 19(1)(g) was established. Regional control was also upheld because the classification had a rational basis in the structure of the sugar market.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 Jan 1959 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292112</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>