SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1966 Supreme(Mad) 169

VEERASWAMI, NATESAN
Haji J. A. Kareem Sait – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Mettupalayam – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: For

Judgment :-

VEERASWAMI, J.

The validity of sub-rule (7) of rule 5 of the Central Sales Tax (Madras) Rules, 1957, and sub-section (3) of section 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956

We are of the view that the petitioner's first contention is well founded but not the second. Section 13 of the Central Act provides for power to make rules. Sub-section (1) authorises the Central Government to make rules providing for certain matters specifically mentioned and the rules made by the Central Government are required by sub-section (2) to be placed before both Houses of Parliament. Under sub-section (3), the State Government is given the power to make rules to carry out the purpose of the Act, but the rules so made should not be inconsistent with the provisions of the Act and the rules made under sub-section (1). The next sub-section enumerates certain purposes in respect of which the State Government will have power to make rules and this power is given without prejudice to the powers conferred by sub-section (3). In purported exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (3) and (4) of section 13, the State Government made the Central Sales Tax (Madras) Rules, 1957, of which rule 5 provid









Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top