Prospective operation of Article 286(3) preserved a pre-existing State sales tax law despite a later parliamentary declaration.

Article 286(3) operates prospectively and applies only where a State sales tax law is a post-Constitution enactment in force after a parliamentary declaration that the goods are essential for the life of the community. A pre-existing State law is not retrospectively invalidated by a later declaration. On the stated facts, the Madhya Bharat Sales Tax Act, 1950 preceded the 1952 parliamentary declaration concerning iron and steel, so the impugned notification remained within the State Act and did not offend Article 286(3).

---

---

Issues: Whether Article 286(3) invalidated the State sales tax levy and notification when the State law pre-dated the parliamentary declaration that iron and steel were essential goods.

Analysis: Article 286(3) applies only where the impugned State law is a post-Constitution enactment and, at the time of its operation, there is already in existence a parliamentary declaration that the goods are essential for the life of the community. The provision is prospective in operation and does not retrospectively affect the validity of a State law enacted before the parliamentary declaration. On the facts, the Madhya Bharat Sales Tax Act, 1950 was a pre-existing law, and the parliamentary declaration in the Essential Goods (Declaration and Regulation of Tax on Sale or Purchase) Act, 1952 came later. The impugned notification therefore remained within the scope of the State Act and did not offend Article 286(3).

Conclusion: Article 286(3) was not violated, and the sales tax levy was valid.

---