https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172388 The Court held that the State Food (Health) Authority's power under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was not an independent source for a permanent or quasi-permanent ban on pan masala and gutka; it was confined to a temporary, emergency-driven measure under valid State rules. It further held that later special tobacco legislation occupied the field to the extent of inconsistency, so a wholesale ban under the impugned notifications was ultra vires. The notifications were also found unreasonable and contrary to Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) because they imposed a total prohibition without fair procedure. Pan masala and gutka were treated as falling within the Act's definition of food. en-us Mon, 02 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 02 Dec 2015 19:13:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172388 The Court held that the State Food (Health) Authority's power under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was not an independent source for a permanent or quasi-permanent ban on pan masala and gutka; it was confined to a temporary, emergency-driven measure under valid State rules. It further held that later special tobacco legislation occupied the field to the extent of inconsistency, so a wholesale ban under the impugned notifications was ultra vires. The notifications were also found unreasonable and contrary to Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) because they imposed a total prohibition without fair procedure. Pan masala and gutka were treated as falling within the Act's definition of food. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 02 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172388