Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.24 seconds)
Documents citing Ramakrishna Rice Working Company, ... vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 17 January, 1962

Mangalam Cement Ltd. And Etc. Etc. vs State Of Rajasthan And Anr. on 11 December, 1986

In Ramakrishna v. State of Bihar, AIR 1963 SC 1667 it has been held that the power of taxing people and their property is an essential attribute of the Government and Government may legitimately exercise the said power by reference to the objects to which it is applicable to the utmost extent to which Government thinks it expedient to do so. The quantum of tax levied by the taxing statute, the conditions subject to which it is levied, the manner in which it is sought to be recovered, are all matters within the competence of the Legislature, and in dealing with the contention raised by a citizen that the taxing statute contravenes Article 19 would naturally be circumspect and cautious.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 62 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Y. Eswariah Choudry vs The Government Of Andhra Pradesh And ... on 23 April, 1973

Once the subordinate legislating activity is delegated, it is open to the delegate to further delegate the ministerial duties as distinguished from the subordinate legislating activity. That is all that has happened in the present case. The power to make orders under Sec. 3 was delegated by the Central Government to the State Government has made the order in which certain non-legislation activities are entrusted to the officials of the State Government. When a similar argument was addressed to me in connection with the Paddy Procurement (Levy) Order in Venkateswara Rice Working Co. v. Govt. of A. P., (1971) 1 APLJ 425. I had then said, "Mr. Krishnamurthi, also submits, that under the Paddy Procurement (Levy) Order the Government has delegated its functions to the Collectors and that such sub-delegation is not permissible. An examination of the provisions of the Paddy Procurement (Levy) Order does not indicate that the State Government had delegated any of the functions delegated to it by the Central Government. What the State Government had done under the Order is to direct its officers to perform certainly purely ministerial functions for the purpose of carrying out the order. There is no sub-delegation of the powers delegated to it under Section 5 of the Essential Commodities Act. There is no force in this contention."
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1