Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.25 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The State Of Bombay And Another vs The United Motors (India) Ltd. And ... on 30 March, 1953
A similar situation as that contemplated by the proviso
would also arise with reference to the saving clause in
article 286(2). If the proviso is to be construed in the
way suggested by the learned AttorneyGeneral, it would seem
to follow that when and as the Parliament lifts the ban
under article 286(2), the lifting of that ban would equally
become futile by virtue of article 286(1)(a). The
Parliament has not in terms Veen given the power to lift the
latter ban. This, therefore, will lead to the extraordinary
result that though the Constitution has in terms provided
that the ban on taxation of sales in the course of inter-
State trade and commerce can be lifted, by the Parliament
generally, and by the President for a
507
limited period, the exercise of both these powers would
become ineffective and still-born by virtue of article
286(1)(a). It appears to me unreasonable to impute any such
intention as inevitably arising from the language used. It
appears to me, with great respect, that, whether it is by
parliamentary legislation or by the Presidential action that
the ban on taxing sales in the course of inter-State trade
and commerce is lifted, the principle of harmonious
construction of article 286 taken as an integral whole,
requires that the lifting of the ban is to be construed as
laying open for taxation the entire field covered by article
286(2) and to carry with it the implication that no other
overlapping ban will be operative. No doubt, it has been
suggested that so far as lifting of the ban under article
286(2) by the Parliament is concerned, the same would be at
least partly operative by virtue of article 286(1) (a) taken
with the Explanation under which the consumption-delivery
State may well be free to tax. This was the view expressed
by the learned dissenting Judge in the case in The State of
Bombay v. The United Motors (India) Ltd.(1).
The Bengal Immunity Company Limited vs The State Of Bihar And Others on 4 December, 1954
But the
majority in the recent decision in the Bengal Immunity Co.
Ltd. v. State of Bihar(2) including the said learned Judge,
have left that question open.
Article 32 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Aswini Kumar Ghose And Anr. vs Arabinda Bose And Anr. on 12 December, 1952
A non-
obstante clause does not normally add to or subtract from
the main provision of which it is a part. It is often
enough inserted by way of extra caution. But it does not
have the effect of limiting the operation of the main
provision. (See Aswini Kumar Ghosh v. Arabinda Bose(1) and
The Dominion of India v. Shrinbai A. Irani(2)). The
suggestion that the Presidential action lifts the ban only
as regards the inter-State sales would be to read the phrase
"notwithstanding that" as meaning "in so far as". I can see
no warrant for any such reading.
State Of Travancore-Cochin And Others vs Shanmugha Vilas Cashew Nut Factoryand ... on 8 May, 1953
It is problematical whether
having regard to the inevitable extra-territorial operation
of the levy of such a tax and the consequent harassment to
the business community which looms large, the Explanation
will receive that construction again and not receive the
strict construction preferred in the dissenting judgment in
the case in State of Travancore-Cochin v. Shanmugha Vilas
Cashew Nut Factory(3). The result, therefore, of construing
the proviso and by parity of reasoning the saving clause, as
merely removing the ban of a particular nature leaving
another overlapping ban to operate, would be to render both
the saving clause in, and the proviso to, article 286(2)
virtually nugatory.
The Dominion Of India And Another vs Shrinbai A. Irani And Another on 14 May, 1954
A non-
obstante clause does not normally add to or subtract from
the main provision of which it is a part. It is often
enough inserted by way of extra caution. But it does not
have the effect of limiting the operation of the main
provision. (See Aswini Kumar Ghosh v. Arabinda Bose(1) and
The Dominion of India v. Shrinbai A. Irani(2)). The
suggestion that the Presidential action lifts the ban only
as regards the inter-State sales would be to read the phrase
"notwithstanding that" as meaning "in so far as". I can see
no warrant for any such reading.
1