Excessive delegation in sales tax law can be cured by retrospective re-enactment that fixes the applicable legal framework.

A legislature cannot abdicate its essential taxing function by adopting another law with future amendments made by that other legislature, because the operative content of liability would then depend on an uncertain future source. On that basis, the Pondicherry General Sales Tax Act, 1965 was treated as void for excessive delegation and surrender of legislative judgment. A retrospective amending Act, however, can validly cure the defect where the competent legislature itself fixes the applicable law by reference to a definite date and validates prior levy and proceedings. The amendment was read as substituting the Pondicherry Administrator for the earlier external rule-making reference, so the levy and proceedings were held validated.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Pondicherry General Sales Tax Act, 1965 was invalid for excessive delegation or abdication of legislative function by adopting the Madras Act as it stood and as it might later be amended; (ii) Whether the Pondicherry General Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1966 validly cured the defect and validated the levy and proceedings.

Issue (i): Whether the Pondicherry General Sales Tax Act, 1965 was invalid for excessive delegation or abdication of legislative function by adopting the Madras Act as it stood and as it might later be amended.

Analysis: The principal enactment extended the Madras sales tax law to Pondicherry and linked its operation to a later notification. The reasoning treated the crucial vice as the Legislature leaving the content of the law to future amendments made by another Legislature, without knowing what those amendments would be. That was held to amount to surrender of legislative judgment in respect of the taxing core, namely the charging provisions and liability to tax. The separate provisions dealing with the appellate tribunal and the schedule were treated as insufficient to save the enactment from the defect affecting its core.

Conclusion: The principal Act was held void and still-born on the ground of abdication and excessive delegation.

Issue (ii): Whether the Pondicherry General Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1966 validly cured the defect and validated the levy and proceedings.

Analysis: The amending law was given retrospective effect and altered the commencement clause and the extension clause so that the principal Act itself became the source of commencement, while the extended Madras law was fixed by the Pondicherry Legislature with reference to a definite date. The retrospective amendment was treated as a valid legislative re-enactment curing the defect before the principal Act could be acted upon, and as validating prior levy and proceedings. The challenge based on continued reference to Madras rule-making power was rejected by reading the provision as conferring the rule-making function on the Pondicherry Administrator in place of the Madras Government.

Conclusion: The amending Act was held to have removed the defect and to have validated the impugned levy and proceedings.

Final Conclusion: The majority held that the impugned sales tax legislation, as retrospectively amended, was valid in its operation and the challenge to the proceedings failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A legislature cannot abdicate its essential legislative function by leaving the operative content of a law to future changes made by another legislature, but a retrospective re-enactment may cure the defect where the competent legislature itself fixes the applicable law and validates prior action.

---