https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175278 The Supreme Court's reasoning on lottery regulation was that lotteries organised by a State fall within the exclusive Union field under Entry 40 of List I, so a State cannot, by executive action, ban the sale of another State's lottery tickets. Article 258(1) entrustment for Maharashtra's own lotteries did not authorise control over lotteries organised by other States, and the constitutional entry could not be narrowed by reading in a "lawfully" limitation. The Court therefore treated Maharashtra's ban as beyond constitutional authority and directed it to stop enforcing the prohibition. en-us Mon, 23 Jan 1984 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 17 Nov 2015 15:14:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175278 The Supreme Court's reasoning on lottery regulation was that lotteries organised by a State fall within the exclusive Union field under Entry 40 of List I, so a State cannot, by executive action, ban the sale of another State's lottery tickets. Article 258(1) entrustment for Maharashtra's own lotteries did not authorise control over lotteries organised by other States, and the constitutional entry could not be narrowed by reading in a "lawfully" limitation. The Court therefore treated Maharashtra's ban as beyond constitutional authority and directed it to stop enforcing the prohibition. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 23 Jan 1984 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175278