Doctrine of pith and substance in interpreting entries in seventh schedule :
In A S Krishna v. State of Madras AIR 1957 SC 297, it was observed that when the Constitution enumerates elaborately the topics on which Centre and States can legislate, some overlapping over the fields of legislation is inevitable. Therefore, to decide whether an impugned legislation is intra vires, regard must be had to its pith and substance. If a statute in substance is found to relate to a topic within the competence of that Legislature, it should be held to be intra vires, even though it might incidentally trench on topics not within its legislative competence – quoted with approval in SIEL Ltd. v. UOI AIR 1998 SC 3076 = (1998) 7 SCC 26 – same view in Ralla Ram v. Province of East Punjab AIR 1949 FC 81 * State of Bombay v. F N Balsara AIR 1951 SC 318 = 1951 SCR 682 * State of Karnataka v. Drive-In Enterprises 2001 AIR SCW 1105 = (2001) 4 SCC 60 = AIR 2001 SC 1328 = 125 STC 240 (SC) * Southern Pharmaceuticalsv. State of Kerala AIR 1981 SC 1863 = (1981) 4 SCC 391 = (1982) 1 SCR 519 * UOI v. Shah Govardhan L 2002 AIR SCW 4325 * Tamil Nadu Kalyana Mandapam Association v. UOI 2004 (167) ELT 3 = (2004) 5 SCC 632 = 136 Taxman 596 = 2004 AIR SCW 3991 = 267 ITR 9 = 4 STT 308 = 135 STC 494 = 3 STR 260 = 1 VST 180 (SC) * Bharat Hydro Power Corpn v. State of Assam 2004 AIR SCW 2308 = (2004) 2 SCC 553 = AIR 2004 SC 3173 * Association of Natural Gas v. UOI 2004 AIR SCW 2035 = (2004) 4 SCC 489 = AIR 2004 SC 2647 (SC 5 member Constitution Bench) * Jamshed N Guzdar v. State of Maharashtra AIR 2005 SC 862 = (2005) 2 SCC 591 (SC 5 member bench) * Hoechst Pharmaceuticals v. State of Bihar AIR 1983 SC 1019 = 154 ITR 64 = (1983) 4 SCC 45 = (1983) 3 SCR 130 = 55 STC 1 (SC 3 member bench) * State of West Bengal v. Kesoram Industries Ltd. AIR 2005 SC 1646 = 266 ITR 721 = (2004) 10 SCC 201 = 2004 AIR SCW 5998 (SC 5 member Constitution bench 4 v. 1 judgment). * E V Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 2005 SC 152 = (2005) 1 SCC 394 = 2004 AIR SCW 6419 (5 member Constitution Bench) * Central Bank of India v. State of Kerala (2009) 4 SCC 94 = 21 VST 505 (SC 3 member bench) * K K Baskaran v. State (2011) 3 SCC 793.
(a) Substance of the impugned Act must be looked at to determine whether it is in pith and substance within a particular entry, whatever its ancillary effect may be. (b) When the encroachment is ostensibly ancillary but in truth beyond the competence of the enacting authority, the statute will be a colourable piece of legislation and constitutionally invalid (c) Apart from passing the test of legislative competency, the Act must be otherwise
valid and would have to pass the test of constitutionality i.e. it cannot be in violation of Constitution nor can it operate extra-territorially – Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd. v. UOI (2005) 4 SCC 214 = 1 STT 41 = 144 Taxman 512 = AIR 2005 SC 3020 = 182 ELT 33 = 67 RLT 469 = 3 STR 608 (SC).