(1) THE respondents were represented. They have been given notice by the Registry of the designation of their Advocate-on-Record as Senior Counsel and asked to make alternative arrangements. The notice was issued on 30-8-1996 and its service may be presumed. The respondents do not appear.

(2) THE appellants filed a writ petition in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana challenging notifications fixing the rate under Section 5(1) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act in relation to the Union Territory of Chandigarh. The notifications were issued by the Administrator (Chief Commissioner) of the territory. The challenge was upheld by the learned Single Judge but it failed in appeal. It is the judgment under appeal which is questioned before us.

(3) THE argument which found favour with the learned Single Judge was this: the impugned notifications, having been issued by a delegate of the Central Government, were bad because the Central Government could not further delegate its power to the Administrator. The learned Single Judge took the view that the Central Government having itself been delegated legislative power under the said Act, it could not further delegate