9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Legislative Competence of the State Legislature to levy market fees on tobacco. 2. Repugnancy between the Tobacco Board Act, 1975, and the State Agricultural Produce Market Acts. 3. Whether the two Acts can co-exist. Summary: 1. Legislative Competence of the State Legislature to Levy Market Fees on Tobacco: The primary issue was whether the State Legislatures had the competence to levy market fees on tobacco under the Agricultural Produce Market Acts, given the enactment of the Tobacco Board Act, 1975, by Parliament under Entry 52 of List I. - Majority View in ITC Case: The majority held that the Tobacco Board Act, 1975, enacted by Parliament under Entry 52 of List I, precluded the State Legislatures from legislating on tobacco, including the levy of market fees, as it fell within the exclusive domain of Parliament. - Minority View in ITC Case: The minority view, expressed by Justice Mukherjee, held that both the Tobacco Board Act and the State Agricultural Produce Market Acts could co-exist without repugnancy, as they operated in their respective fields. - Current Judgment: The judgment held that the word "industry" in Entry 52 of List I should not be given a restricted meaning and should include any ancillary matter reasonably included within the power, enabling Parliament to make effective laws. Thus, the Tobacco Board Act, 1975, is constitutionally valid, and the State Legislatures are denuded of their power to legislate on the sale and purchase of tobacco. 2. Repugnancy Between the Tobacco Board Act, 1975, and State Agricultural Produce Market Acts: The issue was whether the provisions of the Tobacco Board Act, 1975, and the State Agricultural Produce Market Acts were repugnant to each other. - Majority View in ITC Case: The majority held that the provisions of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1966, were repugnant to the Tobacco Board Act, 1975, and therefore, the State Act was invalid to the extent it related to tobacco. - Minority View in ITC Case: Justice Mukherjee opined that there was no repugnancy between the two Acts as they operated in different fields. - Current Judgment: The judgment concluded that the Tobacco Board Act and the Agricultural Produce Market Acts collide with each other and cannot operate simultaneously. Therefore, the Tobacco Board Act would prevail, and the provisions of the Agricultural Produce Market Acts relating to the levy of market fees on tobacco would be invalid. 3. Whether the Two Acts Can Co-Exist: The issue was whether the Tobacco Board Act, 1975, and the State Agricultural Produce Market Acts could co-exist without conflict. - Majority View in ITC Case: The majority held that the two Acts could not co-exist as they were repugnant to each other. - Minority View in ITC Case: Justice Mukherjee held that both Acts could co-exist and operate in their respective fields without conflict. - Current Judgment: The judgment held that the two Acts could not co-exist as they were in direct collision with each other. Therefore, the Tobacco Board Act would prevail over the State Agricultural Produce Market Acts concerning the sale and purchase of tobacco. Conclusion: The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the Tobacco Board Act, 1975, and held that the State Agricultural Produce Market Acts were invalid to the extent they related to the levy of market fees on tobacco. The judgment affirmed the majority view in ITC Ltd. vs. State of Karnataka, concluding that the provisions of the two Acts could not co-exist and that the Tobacco Board Act would prevail.
|
