THALLAM BALA SUBRAHMANYAM Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short but important question urged in these cases is whether sections 8 and 9 of the Central Sales Tax, Act, 1956 are void and still-born. The argument is that in legislating these provisions the Parliament has abdicated the power to legislate and without applying its mind to the future legislation in imposing Sales Tax on inter-state transactions and in fixing the rates of tax and effecting exemptions, adopted the State laws which the State Legislature would in future in that behalf make. Strong reliance was placed in support of that contention on Shama Rao v. Union territory of Pondicherry.

(2.) In order to appreciate the implications of this contention it is necessary to carefully read sections 8 and 9 of the Act in so far as they are relevant:

(3.) Provided that if in any State or part thereof there is no General Sales Tax Law in force, the Central Government may, by rules made in this behalf, make necessary provision for all or any of the matters specified in this sub-section and such rules may provide that a breach of any rule shall be punishable with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees; and where the offence is a continuing offence, with a daily fine which may extend to fifty rupees for every day during which the offence continues. (4) The proceeds in any financial year of any tax, including. any penalty, levied and collected under this Act in any State (other than a union Territory) on behalf of the Government of India shall be assigned to that State and shall be retained by it and the proceeds attributable to Union Territories shall form part of the consolidated Fund of India.