<?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>2025 (9) TMI 866 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778377</link>
    <description>Coal pricing deregulated under the applicable control order left the coal company with statutory competence to notify interim prices, and the earlier direction to form an expert committee did not suspend that power. The Supreme Court upheld the 20% higher notified price for linked consumers in the non-core sector, holding that they were not similarly situated to core sector consumers and that the classification had a rational nexus with sustaining supply and the public sector undertaking&#039;s operational capacity; the Article 14 challenge failed. The refund claim also failed because the policy was valid and the respondents did not establish on reliable material that the burden had not been passed on, so unjust enrichment barred recovery.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 16 Sep 2025 09:02:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=850745" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (9) TMI 866 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778377</link>
      <description>Coal pricing deregulated under the applicable control order left the coal company with statutory competence to notify interim prices, and the earlier direction to form an expert committee did not suspend that power. The Supreme Court upheld the 20% higher notified price for linked consumers in the non-core sector, holding that they were not similarly situated to core sector consumers and that the classification had a rational nexus with sustaining supply and the public sector undertaking&#039;s operational capacity; the Article 14 challenge failed. The refund claim also failed because the policy was valid and the respondents did not establish on reliable material that the burden had not been passed on, so unjust enrichment barred recovery.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778377</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>