Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.26 seconds)Article 366 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Government of India Act, 1935
The State Of Madras vs Gannon Dunkerley & Co.,(Madras) Ltd on 1 April, 1958
25. We are of the considered view that by bringing Section 9(5) in
the JVAT Act into the Statute Book, the dealers have been put to a
disadvantageous position, which was not there, prior to the amendment
made in the year 2011, and this putting the dealers into a disadvantageous
position was not within the legislative competence of the State Legislature.
No doubt, had this amendment in the JVAT Act been within the legislative
competence of the State Legislature, there was no scope of any interference
therein by this Court. But this is a clear case where the State Legislature
was not having the legislative competence to give the expression "sale of
goods" an extended meaning and to enlarge its legislative field to cover
those transactions for taxing, which did not properly conform to the
elements of sale of goods within the Sales of goods Act, or under
Article 366(29A) of the Constitution of India, and were not satisfying the
four conditions of sale, as given in Gannon Dunkerley's case (supra).
Government Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors vs Smt. P. Laxmi Devi on 25 February, 2008
26. Though it is well settled that this Court should not interfere
into the fiscal legislations, and the laws, relating to economic activities
should be viewed with greater latitude than the laws touching civil rights,
and even if there are possibilities of abuse, that cannot in itself be a ground
for invalidating the legislation, but since the State action is not within the
competence of the State Legislature, this Court has no option, but to strike
down the action of the State Legislature, which was beyond its legislative
competence. Even the decision cited by learned counsel for the State, in
P. Laxmi Devi's case (supra), supports this view in so many words, when
it lays down as follows:-
Rt. Rev. Magr. Mark Netto vs Govt. Of Kerala & Ors on 11 September, 1978
46. In our opinion, there is one and only one ground for
declaring an Act of the legislature (or a provision in the Act) to
be invalid, and that is if it clearly violates some provision of the
Constitution in so evident a manner as to leave no manner of
doubt. This violation can, of course, be in different ways e.g. if
a State Legislature makes a law which only Parliament can
make under List I to the Seventh Schedule, in which case it will
violate Article 246(1) of the Constitution, or the law violates
some specific provision of the Constitution (other than the
directive principles). But before declaring the statute to be
unconstitutional, the court must be absolutely sure that there
can be no manner of doubt that it violates a provision of the
Constitution. If two views are possible, one making the statute
constitutional and the other making it unconstitutional, the
former view must always be preferred. Also, the court must
make every effort to uphold the constitutional validity of a
statute, even if that requires giving a strained construction or
narrowing down its scope vide Rt. Rev. Msgr. Mark Netto v.
State of Kerala SCC para 6 : AIR para 6. Also, it is none of the
concern of the court whether the legislation in its opinion is
wise or unwise.
Kedar Nath Singh vs State Of Bihar on 20 January, 1962
unconstitutional, the former should be preferred vide
Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar. -------------.
Mafatlal Industries Ltd. And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 19 December, 1996
In support of his contention, learned counsel
has placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Keisham Meghachandra Singh Vs. Hon'ble Speaker Manipur
Legislative Assembly and Ors., reported in 2020 SCC OnLine SC 55.
State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Bhailal Bhai & Ors on 20 January, 1964
27. We do not find any substance in the submission of learned
counsel for the State that in the present case only apprehending danger is
challenged, and judicial review is not available at the stage prior to making
a decision, on the ground of quia timet action. The law relating to
quia timet action, is also no more res integra, in view of the law laid down
by the Apex Court in Bhilal Bhai's case (supra), and
Tashi Delek Gaming Solutions Ltd.'s case (supra), holding that a
quia timet application would be maintainable.