Rule-making power upheld for duplicate receipts, and assessment sustained where the dealer failed to produce evidence.

Rule 36 requiring duplicate copies of cash receipts or bills was upheld as a valid exercise of the general rule-making power under Section 26, because it was reasonably necessary to detect undisclosed books and verify the genuineness of accounts. The assessment was also sustained, as the record showed the assessing officer gave the dealer an opportunity to produce evidence and the dealer failed to do so; the claim that the officer had not personally dealt with the matter was rejected. The challenge to both the rule and the assessment therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Rule 36, requiring production of duplicate copies of cash receipts or bills, was ultra vires Section 26 of the Bihar Sales Tax Act. (ii) Whether the assessment was invalid because the assessing officer did not personally hear the evidence and instead acted on the inspector's report.

Issue (i): Whether Rule 36, requiring production of duplicate copies of cash receipts or bills, was ultra vires Section 26 of the Bihar Sales Tax Act.

Analysis: Section 26(1) conferred a general power to make rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act, while Section 26(2) supplied particular instances of rule-making without cutting down that generality. The requirement of duplicate receipts or bills was treated as a practical measure to detect undisclosed books and to verify the genuineness of accounts by comparison with purchasers' copies. The rule was therefore regarded as necessary to effectuate the statutory scheme.

Conclusion: Rule 36 was valid and not ultra vires.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessment was invalid because the assessing officer did not personally hear the evidence and instead acted on the inspector's report.

Analysis: The assessment record showed that the assessing officer himself gave the dealer an opportunity to produce evidence and recorded that the dealer failed to do so. On that factual basis, the contention that the officer had not personally dealt with the matter was rejected.

Conclusion: The assessment was not illegal on this ground.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to both the validity of the rule and the assessment failed, and the assessment stood confirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: A rule made under a general statutory power to carry out the purposes of an Act is valid if it is reasonably necessary for that purpose, even where the matter is not expressly specified in the enumerated sub-clauses of the rule-making provision.

---