https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234297 Repugnancy under Article 254(1) arises when a competent Central law is made and assented to, not only when it later commences in a State. Where Parliament occupies the entire concurrent field, an inconsistent State law is displaced on the making of the Central enactment. The Central Chit Funds Act, 1982 was treated as occupying the field of chits, so the Kerala Chitties Act, 1975 stood impliedly repealed to the extent of inconsistency, while Section 6 of the General Clauses Act preserved prior operation, accrued rights and completed transactions. A later State amendment could not validly operate without Presidential assent under Article 254(2). en-us Tue, 08 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 27 Oct 2015 10:49:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234297 Repugnancy under Article 254(1) arises when a competent Central law is made and assented to, not only when it later commences in a State. Where Parliament occupies the entire concurrent field, an inconsistent State law is displaced on the making of the Central enactment. The Central Chit Funds Act, 1982 was treated as occupying the field of chits, so the Kerala Chitties Act, 1975 stood impliedly repealed to the extent of inconsistency, while Section 6 of the General Clauses Act preserved prior operation, accrued rights and completed transactions. A later State amendment could not validly operate without Presidential assent under Article 254(2). Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 08 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234297