Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.44 seconds)
Godfrey Phillips(I)Ltd.& Anr vs State Of U.P.& Ors on 20 January, 2005 cites

State Of West Bengal vs Kesoram Industries Ltd. And Ors on 15 January, 2004

But as we have already noted and as is abundantly clear from the passages quoted, the decision was given on the assumption that articles of luxury are covered by Entry 62 List II and cannot be held to be an authority for the proposition that articles or goods are, as a matter of construction, fairly and reasonably includible in that entry. The argument of Mr. Salve is in fact that the breadth of an entry is curtailed by the second principle of construction. The second principle is that competing entries must be read harmoniously. The proper way to avoid a conflict would be to read the entries together and to interpret the language of one by that of the other (Governor General in Council vs. Province of Madras (1945) FCR 179 at pg. 191-192 ); State of Bombay vs. Narottamdas Jethabhai 1951 SCR 51; Bar Council of U.P. vs. State of U.P. & Anr. (1973) 1 SCC 261; D.G. Ghose & Co. (Agents) (P) Ltd. vs. State of Kerala & Anr. (1980) 2 SCC 410; Federation of Hotel and Restaurant vs. Union of India (1989) 3 SCC 634, 657, 667-668; State of West Bengal vs. Kesoram Industries 2004 (1) SCALE 425, 462; in the matter of Central Provinces and Berar Sales of Motor Spirit and Lubricants Taxation Act, 1938; AIR (1939) FC 1,8,40 ).
Supreme Court of India Cites 258 - Cited by 433 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

Godawat Pan Masala Products I.P. Ltd. & ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 2 August, 2004

Mr. R. Nariman also representing the assesses, submitted that the State Acts are violative of Art. 301 of the Constitution. It is submitted by Mr. Nariman, that the only exception to the right to free trade, commerce and intercourse throughout the territory of India provided for under Article 301 related to articles which were res extra commercium. This exception did not apply to tobacco. The decision in State of Punjab Vs. M/s. Devans Modern Breweries 2003(10) Scale 202, which held that liquor was res extra commercium was sought to be distinguished on the ground that tobacco, unlike liquor, was not the subject matter of any privilege, but was the subject matter of ordinary trade or commerce. It is submitted that it was recognized by Parliament that the trade in tobacco was of national importance, and had been declared to be of national importance in interstate trade and commerce under Article 286 (3) read with Section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act 1956. Reliance was placed on the recent decision of this Court in Godawat Pan Masala Products vs. Union of India 2004 (6) Scale Page 388, which has held that tobacco was not res extra commercium. The further contention is that Articles 301 and 286 form part of a common constitutional scheme to preserve the economic unity of the country and that although Article 286 was limited to sales but nevertheless since there was a declaration under that Article in respect of tobacco, it meant that imposition of any tax on the commodity over and above the outer limit provided under Section 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act would ipso facto amount to a contravention of Article 301. Any tax which would result in a declared commodity, such as tobacco, being subjected to higher taxes in a particular State would, according to Mr. Nariman, contravene Article 301 since it would lead to a regional economic imbalance. The only way that such a State law could be validated would be through Article 304 (b). It is the accepted position that none of the State Acts have received any Presidential assent under Article 304 of the Constitution.
Supreme Court of India Cites 60 - Cited by 428 - Full Document
1