<?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>1996 (4) TMI 528 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292296</link>
    <description>A retrospective validating tax law was upheld because the legislature itself identified the levy, its subject matter, and the basis for assessment and collection, leaving no essential legislative function to be delegated; the challenge based on excessive delegation therefore failed. The Pondicherry Legislature, having powers co-extensive with a State Legislature under Article 239A and the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963, could enact retrospective validating legislation on petrol and diesel within its competence, so the competence challenge failed. The enactment was also not repugnant to the continuing and parliamentary laws governing Pondicherry, as those provisions did not bar a fresh levy by a competent legislature and no inconsistent parliamentary levy existed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 04 Apr 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 Dec 2020 09:34:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=630509" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (4) TMI 528 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292296</link>
      <description>A retrospective validating tax law was upheld because the legislature itself identified the levy, its subject matter, and the basis for assessment and collection, leaving no essential legislative function to be delegated; the challenge based on excessive delegation therefore failed. The Pondicherry Legislature, having powers co-extensive with a State Legislature under Article 239A and the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963, could enact retrospective validating legislation on petrol and diesel within its competence, so the competence challenge failed. The enactment was also not repugnant to the continuing and parliamentary laws governing Pondicherry, as those provisions did not bar a fresh levy by a competent legislature and no inconsistent parliamentary levy existed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 04 Apr 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292296</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>