1973 (12) TMI 38 - SUPREME COURT

Whether the provisions of section 8(2)(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 do not stiffer from the vice of excessive delegation and are, therefore, immune from attack on the ground that Parliament has abdicated its essential legislative function in enacting them?

Held that:- There can be nodoubt that Parliament can repeal the provisions of section 8(2)(b) adopting the higher rate of tax fixed by the appropriate State Legislature in respect of inter-State sales. If Parliament can repeal the provision, there can be no objection on the score that Parliament has abdicated its legislative function. It retains its control over the fixation of the rate intact. In other words, so long as Parliament can repeal the provisions of section 8(2)(b) adopting the higher rate of tax fixed by the State Legislature, it has not abdicated its legislative function.

We are glad to find that our conclusion that Parliament has not abdicated its legislative function by enacting section 8(2)(b) of the Act is in agreement with that reached by the High Court of Gujarat in Rallis India Ltd. v. R. S. Joshi, Sales Tax Officer, [1972 (9) TMI 138 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] and the High Court of Punjab in Tek Chand Daulat Rai v. Excise and Taxation Officer, Ferozepore [1971 (4) TMI 89 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] . Appeals dismissed.