https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278312 Section 16(6) of the Madhya Pradesh Motoryan Karadhan Adhiniyam, 1991 was held repugnant to Section 66 read with Section 192A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 because the State provision attached confiscation to the same offence already punished under the Union law. The Motor Vehicles Act prescribed the punishment for the offence, while the State law added a further and more stringent consequence by authorising confiscation of the vehicle. As the two enactments could not operate consistently on the same field, the State provisions could prevail only with Presidential assent under Article 254(2), which was absent. The impugned confiscatory provisions were therefore invalid. en-us Fri, 28 Nov 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 01 Jul 2024 18:33:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278312 Section 16(6) of the Madhya Pradesh Motoryan Karadhan Adhiniyam, 1991 was held repugnant to Section 66 read with Section 192A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 because the State provision attached confiscation to the same offence already punished under the Union law. The Motor Vehicles Act prescribed the punishment for the offence, while the State law added a further and more stringent consequence by authorising confiscation of the vehicle. As the two enactments could not operate consistently on the same field, the State provisions could prevail only with Presidential assent under Article 254(2), which was absent. The impugned confiscatory provisions were therefore invalid. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 28 Nov 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278312