Judgment

ALAGIRISWAMI, J.:- These appeals arise out of the judgment of the High Court of Mysore dismissing a batch of writ petitions filed by a number of dealers in the State of Mysore (now Karnataka) questioning the levy of sales tax under the Central Sales Tax Act on certain inter-State sales. The goods dealt with were all declared goods and under the Mysore Sales Tax Act they were taxable at the point of purchase at a single point. The assessment periods are prior to 10th November 1964. The importance of this date will become clear when we proceed to deal with the matter subsequently. The assessing authorities assessed all these transactions of inter-State sales to tax. This Court delivered its judgment in what is known as Yaddalam s case, 16 STC 231 - (AIR 1965 SC 1510) holding that where a certain transaction was not liable to sales tax if it were an intra-State sale under the Sales Tax Law of the appropriate State, it would not be liable to sales tax if it were an inter,State sale. Following this decision the assessment orders were rectified giving effect to the judement. To set aside the effect of this decision sub-s. (1A) was inserted in Section 6 and a consequential amendment was made in sub-s. (2A) of Section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act. After this the assessing authorities again rectified the assessment orders and brought to tax the inter-State sales.

2. Before this Court the validity of Section 8 (2) (a) as well as Section 6 (1A) of the Central Sales Tax Act read with Section 10 of the Central Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1969 is questioned. In the alternative it is argued that even after the amendment these transactions are not liable to sales tax. The rectification orders are also impugned on the ground :

1. that there was no mistake apparent on the face of the record to justify the rectification under R. 38 of the Mysore Sales Tax Rules, and

2. that in any case such rectification is beyond the permitted period.

3. The first contention regarding the unconstitutionality of S. 8 (2) (a) is sought to be based on the decision of this Court in G. Rayon Silk Mfg. (Wvg.) Co. Ltd. v. Asst. Commr. 33 SIC 219 -1974 Tax LR 2017) dealing with the constitutionality of, section 8 (2) (b). We consider that far from supporting the appellants that decision actually is against the contention put forward on behalf of the appellants. It is only necessary to set out what this Court said in that decision. It is hardly necessary to add anything more. In that case the majority while upholding the validity of Section 8 (2) (b) observed :

"It has been argued on behalf of the appellants that the fixation of rate of tax is a legislative function and as the Parliament has, under Section 8 (2) (b) of the Act, not fixed the rate of Central sales tax but has adopted the rate applicable to the sale or purchase of goods inside the appropriate State in case such rate exceeds 10 per cent the Parliament has abdicated its legislative function. The above provision is consequently stated to be constitutionally invalid because of excessive delegation of legislative power. This contention, in our opinion, is not well founded. Section 8 (2) (b) of the Act has plainly been enacted with a view to prevent evasion of the payment of the Central sales tax. The Act prescribes a low rate of tax of 3 per cent in the case of inter-State sales only if the goods are sold to the Government or to a registered dealer other than the Government. In the case of such a registered dealer, it is essential that the goods should be of the description mentioned in sub-section (3) of Sec. 8 of the Act. In order, however, to avail of the benefit of such a low rate of tax under Section 8 (1) of the Act, it is also essential that the dealer selling the goods should furnish to the prescribed authority in the prescribed manner a declaration duly filled and signed by the registered dealer, to whom the goods are sold, containing the prescribed particulars in the prescribed form obtained from