Delegated extension power cannot later dilute mandatory notice safeguards in tax exemption withdrawals through a subsequent notification.

A delegated power to extend an enactment cannot later be used to alter an essential statutory feature or legislative policy. The Supreme Court held that section 2 of the Union Territories (Laws) Act, 1950 was an integral, one-time power exercisable only when the enactment was first extended, so a later notification could not substitute a shorter notice period under section 6(2) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941. Because the mandatory three-month notice requirement was not complied with, the later withdrawal of sales-tax exemptions was invalid and the attempted modification was beyond authority.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Central Government could, by a later notification under section 2 of the Union Territories (Laws) Act, 1950, amend the earlier extension notification so as to substitute a shorter notice period in section 6(2) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, and thereby validly withdraw sales-tax exemptions from scheduled goods.

Analysis: The power under section 2 was held to be an integral power of extension, exercisable only once and only contemporaneously with the extension of the enactment to the Union Territory. It could not be used subsequently to make alterations unrelated to the original extension. The substituted notice provision also went beyond permissible adaptation because section 6(2) embodied a mandatory legislative command requiring not less than three months' notice, which formed part of the statute's policy and essential scheme. The later parliamentary amendment was found not to have validated or re-enacted the impugned modification, since it neither referred to nor approved the challenged notification. The subsequent withdrawal notifications, having been issued without compliance with the mandatory notice requirement, were therefore equally ineffective.

Conclusion: The impugned modification and the consequential withdrawal of exemptions were beyond the Central Government's authority and were invalid.

Ratio Decidendi: A delegated power to extend an enactment with restrictions and modifications does not authorise a later change that alters an essential statutory feature or legislative policy, and a mandatory procedural safeguard cannot be diluted except by competent legislation.

---