TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
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
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the pre-Constitution sales tax ordinance continued by the Constitution was rendered void by Article 286(3) of the Constitution of India, and whether Section 3 of the Essential Goods (Declaration and Regulation of Tax on Sale or Purchase) Act, 1952 invalidated or affected that ordinance.
Analysis: Article 286(3) was construed as applying to a law made by a State Legislature after the commencement of the Constitution and requiring reservation for Presidential assent. The impugned ordinance was an existing law continued by Article 372, and therefore was not a post-Constitution law within the reach of Article 286(3). Section 3 of the Essential Goods (Declaration and Regulation of Tax on Sale or Purchase) Act, 1952 was held to be in consonance with Article 286(3) and, in any event, did not affect the pre-Constitution ordinance because the ordinance had not been made after the commencement of that Act.
Conclusion: The ordinance was not void under Article 286(3), and the challenge to the sales tax liability failed.
Final Conclusion: The petition was held to be without substance and was dismissed with costs.
Ratio Decidendi: Article 286(3) governs only post-Constitution State legislation imposing sales tax, and an existing pre-Constitution law continued by Article 372 is outside its operation.
TaxTMI 
