RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, J.

At the date relevant to these petitions Article 286(3) of the Constitution ran :

"(3) No law made by the Legislature of a State imposing, or authorising the imposition of, a tax on the sale or purchase of any such goods as have been declared by Parliament by law to be essential for the life of the community shall have effect unless it has been reserved for the consideration of the President and has received his assent." *

By virtue of the power thus vested in Parliament, was enacted the Essential Goods (Declaration and Regulation of Tax on Sale of Purchase) Act, 1952 (Act 52 of 1952). The preamble to the Act stated that it was an Act to declare in pursuance of clause (3) of Article 286 of the Constitution, certain goods to be essential for the life of the community. The operative part of this enactment was section 3 which ran :

"3. No law made after the commencement of this Act by the Legislature of a State imposing, or authorising the imposition of, a tax on the sale or purchase of any goods declared by this Act to be essential for the life of the community shall have effect unless it has been reserved for the consideration of the President and has received his assent." *

The date of the commencement of the Act was 9th August, 1952, being the date on which having received the assent of the President it was published in the Gazette of India. Item 10 of the list of goods set out in the schedule and which were declared "essential for the life of the community" to which the provisions of section 3 were attracted was "hides and skins."

Under the rule-making power vested in them under section 3 and section 19 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939, the Government of Madras framed certain amendments to the Turnover and Assessment Rules amending the already existing ones relative to the imposition and levy of sales tax on hides and skins. These changes were effected by a notification in the official Gazette dated 3rd September, 1955, the rules being expressed to have retrospective effect from the beginning of the financial year 1955-56. The question that is raised in these petitions is whether these rules infringe the provisions of Article 286(3) of the Constitution or section 3 of Act 52 of 1952.Before entering on a discussion of this point, it would be convenient to put aside matters which are common ground and beyond controversy. The first is that Article 286(3) addresses itself to the future and not to the past; it imposes fetters on what might be termed post-Constitution laws and does not seek the invalidation of laws in existence on the date of the Constitution. The Sales Tax Acts of the several States which were "existing laws" on the date of the Constitution were thus left unaffected and operative without any restriction. Next, Constitutional prohibition did not operate of its own force but was dependent on parliamentary legislation declaring a commodity to be "essential to the life of the community" before the restriction came into operation. Lastly, on the terms of section 3 of Act 52 of 1952 the area of the State laws which were saved extended to those in force on 9th August, 1952, because only the State laws enacted after the coming into force of Act 52 of 1952 were hit at by the restriction imposed by the Act.

The question which requires to be decided in these petitions is whether the amendment effected to rules 15 and 16 of the Turnover and Assessment Rules framed under the Madras General Sales Tax Act by the notification dated 3rd September, 1955, to whose terms I shall immediately refer, was "a law made ......... by the legislature of a State imposing or authorising the imposition of a tax on the sale or purchase of" hides and skins. The contentions urged by Mr. Nambiar for the petitioner and the learned Advocate-General for the respondent-State were directed to assert or deny this proposition.

To appreciate the point urged by learned counsel for the petitioner it is necessary to adver