TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the State Legislature was competent to amend the State law regulating silk yarn after the Parliamentary declaration under Entry 52 of List I, and whether the impugned amendments were repugnant to the Central Silk Boards Act, 1948.
Analysis: Entry 52 of List I authorises Union control only over the manufacturing or production aspect of a controlled industry, and does not exclude State power over raw materials or the distribution and marketing of the products of the industry. The Central Silk Boards Act, 1948 was held to be directed to the development and control of the silk industry through the Central Silk Board, research and allied matters, and not to the field governed by Entry 33 of List III. The amendments in question dealt with regulation of supply, distribution and sale of silk yarn, which fell outside the limited reach of the Parliamentary declaration under Entry 52 and within the State's legislative competence.
Conclusion: The State Legislature was competent to enact the impugned amendments, and the challenge based on lack of competence and repugnancy failed.
Ratio Decidendi: A Parliamentary declaration under Entry 52 of List I does not denude the State of power to legislate on raw materials or on distribution and marketing of industrial products, and State law on those subjects remains valid unless it directly conflicts with a Central law occupying the same field.
TaxTMI 
