https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182092 The Uttar Pradesh Sheera Niyantran Adhiniyam, 1964 was within State legislative competence because trade and commerce in, and production, supply and distribution of, the products of a controlled industry fell under Entry 33 of List III, while Section 18G of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 was treated as an exercise of concurrent power. No actual repugnancy was shown, as the Central Molasses Control Order had not been extended to Uttar Pradesh and the State enactment had Presidential assent. The molasses control and price-fixation notifications were also upheld as reasonable economic regulation in the public interest and not violative of Articles 19(1)(g) or 301. en-us Fri, 11 Sep 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 10 Jan 2017 11:16:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182092 The Uttar Pradesh Sheera Niyantran Adhiniyam, 1964 was within State legislative competence because trade and commerce in, and production, supply and distribution of, the products of a controlled industry fell under Entry 33 of List III, while Section 18G of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 was treated as an exercise of concurrent power. No actual repugnancy was shown, as the Central Molasses Control Order had not been extended to Uttar Pradesh and the State enactment had Presidential assent. The molasses control and price-fixation notifications were also upheld as reasonable economic regulation in the public interest and not violative of Articles 19(1)(g) or 301. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 11 Sep 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182092