Skip to content


P. Ramasamy Nadar Vs. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Royapuram Division - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case Number Writ Petition No. 284 of 1960
Judge
Reported in[1962]13STC912(Mad)
AppellantP. Ramasamy Nadar
RespondentDeputy Commercial Tax Officer, Royapuram Division
Appellant Advocate A. Shanmugavel and ; Jayalakshmi Shanmugavel, Advs.
Respondent Advocate The Additional Government Pleader
DispositionPetition allowed
Excerpt:
- .....on the ground, inter alia, that rule 25 is invalid for the reason that it is in excess of the rule-making power of the government under section 53 of the madras general sales tax act, 1959.2. section 53, sub-section (2) obviously does not provide for a power to make a rule in relation to permits for travelling salesman and representatives. it is true that sub-section (1) of section 53 confers power upon the government to make rules to carry out the purposes of this act. but it is difficult to say that this power includes framing of the rule such as in question here. evidently for that reason section 2i-a has been inserted which practically renders rule 25 into a statutory provision. as a matter of fact the statement of objects and reasons for introducing that section explicitly.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Veeraswami, J.

1. This petition is to direct the respondent, the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Royapuram Division, to forebear from enforcing Rule 25 of the Madras General Sales Tax Rules, 1959. That rule requires every registered dealer who transacts business at places other than his registered place of business or employs a travelling salesman or representative to transact business as aforesaid to apply for a permit authorising himself or as the case may be the travelling salesman or representative so to do. The rest of the provisions of this rule provide for the procedure for making applications, licence fee and renewals of permits. For the year 1959-60 the petitioner was required under this rule to take out permits for himself and his travelling salesman in coffee powder. The petitioner challenges this requisition on the ground, inter alia, that Rule 25 is invalid for the reason that it is in excess of the rule-making power of the Government under Section 53 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959.

2. Section 53, Sub-section (2) obviously does not provide for a power to make a rule in relation to permits for travelling salesman and representatives. It is true that Sub-section (1) of Section 53 confers power upon the Government to make rules to carry out the purposes of this Act. But it is difficult to say that this power includes framing of the rule such as in question here. Evidently for that reason Section 2I-A has been inserted which practically renders Rule 25 into a statutory provision. As a matter of fact the statement of objects and reasons for introducing that section explicitly proceeds on the footing that the Government considered the rule as beyond the rule-making power conferred by the Act. There is no indication in Section 21-A that it is intended to have retrospective operation. That section was introduced by Act XIX of 1960, which itself came into force with effect from 1st October, 1960, and has, therefore, no application to the earlier period ended 31st March, 1960. On the ground that Rule 25 was beyond the rule-making power of the Government, this petition is allowed and the rule nisi is made absolute. No costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //