Legislative relationship between Union and States Important case laws and summery

Subject : Constitution of India

Topic: Legislative relationship between Union and States case laws summery

1. State of Bombay v. R.M.D.C (AIR 1957 SC 699)

The Respondent was not staying in Bombay but he started a Competitions with prize money through a newspaper printed and published from Banglore and got a wide circulation in Bombay. All the essential activities like filling up of the forms,entry fees etc for the competition took place in Bombay.The state govt. sought to levy tax the respondent for organising such competition in the state.

The question for decision before the Supreme Court was if the respondent, the organizer of the competition, who was outside the state of Bombay, could be validly taxed under the Act.

Judgment: It was held that there existed a sufficient territorial nexus to enable the Bombay Legislature to tax the respondent as all the activities which the competitor is ordinarily expected to undertake took place mostly within Bombay.

2. Tata Iron and Steel company v. Bihar state (AIR 1958 SC 482)

The state of Bihar passed a Sales Tax Act for levy of sales tax whether the sale was concluded within the state or outside if the goods were produced, found and manufactured in the state .

Judgment: The court noticed that there was sufficient territorial nexus and considered the Act as valid.

3. Union of India v. H.S Dhillon

In this case the question appeared before the court was that the Parliament competent to impose wealth on person of Agriculture land. The subject fall neither on state list not in concurrent list. Also not fall under Union list. It was held that Parliament has residuary power to enter the subject into List I of seventh schedule i.e. Union list.

4. Devika Biswas v. Union of India

The petitioner filed a PIL claiming that a NGO in Bihar was conducting a sterilization program of more than 50 women. The petitioner noticed that no proper procedure was maintained during such sterilization. In this case the court held that population control and family planning is a matter of national importance and common concern of Union and States. Though it was performed by State Government but Union Government can not deny its responsibility.

5. State of Bombay v. F.N Balsora

The Bombay state Government prohibited sale and possession of liquor. The Act was challenged in court that it is working beyond its jurisdiction i.e. import and export of liquor is central subject matter. The court withheld the Act valid as the subject fall under state list.