<?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>2009 (5) TMI 1021 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312814</link>
    <description>The commentary addresses whether ghee is a livestock product under the Act, whether a later notification under Section 4(4) could validly regulate it without repeating the procedure under Sections 3 and 4, and whether traders must obtain a licence and pay market fee. One view treats ghee as a derivative of milk and therefore within &quot;products of livestock,&quot; holding that the Government may notify it for regulation and that later regulatory changes may be made by notification within the statutory framework. The opposite view says ghee falls outside the definition and that mandatory procedural steps were not followed, so the notification cannot be sustained. The text notes conflicting conclusions and no single majority outcome.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 01 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 09 Mar 2024 10:40:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=746277" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (5) TMI 1021 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312814</link>
      <description>The commentary addresses whether ghee is a livestock product under the Act, whether a later notification under Section 4(4) could validly regulate it without repeating the procedure under Sections 3 and 4, and whether traders must obtain a licence and pay market fee. One view treats ghee as a derivative of milk and therefore within &quot;products of livestock,&quot; holding that the Government may notify it for regulation and that later regulatory changes may be made by notification within the statutory framework. The opposite view says ghee falls outside the definition and that mandatory procedural steps were not followed, so the notification cannot be sustained. The text notes conflicting conclusions and no single majority outcome.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 01 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312814</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>