https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273560 Transporting wheat-mixture beyond the stage of preparation, where the movement had progressed towards unlawful removal and was interrupted by an external interception, was treated as an attempt rather than a mere preparatory act, attracting liability under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act read with Clause 3 of the U.P. Wheat (Restriction on Movement) Order, 1940. The permit requirement under Clause 3 was upheld as a regulatory measure aimed at controlling essential commodities, with the licensing discretion not found arbitrary or constitutionally uncontrolled. It was also held not to impose a direct or immediate restriction on inter-State trade under Articles 301, 302 and 303, or to violate Article 19(1)(g). en-us Tue, 26 Sep 1961 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 02 Jul 2018 16:05:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273560 Transporting wheat-mixture beyond the stage of preparation, where the movement had progressed towards unlawful removal and was interrupted by an external interception, was treated as an attempt rather than a mere preparatory act, attracting liability under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act read with Clause 3 of the U.P. Wheat (Restriction on Movement) Order, 1940. The permit requirement under Clause 3 was upheld as a regulatory measure aimed at controlling essential commodities, with the licensing discretion not found arbitrary or constitutionally uncontrolled. It was also held not to impose a direct or immediate restriction on inter-State trade under Articles 301, 302 and 303, or to violate Article 19(1)(g). Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 26 Sep 1961 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273560