Pre-existing sales tax law, rule-making power, and single-point concession upheld against challenge to hides and skins levy.

A pre-existing State sales tax law was held not to be invalid for want of Presidential assent under Article 286(3), because the constitutional restriction did not apply to antecedent legislation merely because the goods were later treated as essential. The amendment shifting assessment from licensed tanners to licensed or unlicensed tanners was upheld as a valid exercise of rule-making power, since it regulated implementation rather than changed legislative policy. The rule applying tax at each sale for unlicensed dealers was also upheld, as the Act's single-point concession was confined to licence-holders and did not bar assessment of unlicensed dealers.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the levy of sales tax on the purchase turnover of untanned hides and skins was invalid for want of Presidential assent under Article 286(3) of the Constitution of India. (ii) Whether the amendment to the relevant sales tax rule shifting the basis of assessment from licensed tanners to licensed or unlicensed tanners was beyond the rule-making power. (iii) Whether the rule providing taxation on each occasion of sale for unlicensed dealers in hides and skins was ultra vires because the Act contemplated taxation at a single point.

Issue (i): Whether the levy of sales tax on the purchase turnover of untanned hides and skins was invalid for want of Presidential assent under Article 286(3) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The constitutional restriction in Article 286(3) was held inapplicable to a pre-existing State sales tax law. The Mysore Sales Tax Act was already in force before the Constitution, and the levy on hides and skins was therefore not dependent on Presidential assent merely because hides and skins had later been declared essential goods. The bar in Article 286(3) was treated as not operating on such antecedent legislation.

Conclusion: The levy was not invalid on the ground of absence of Presidential assent, and this contention failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the amendment to the relevant sales tax rule shifting the basis of assessment from licensed tanners to licensed or unlicensed tanners was beyond the rule-making power.

Analysis: The Act empowered the Government to regulate turnover and vary the Schedule by notification. The change concerned only the mode of identifying the person from whom tax was collected and did not amount to a legislative delegation of policy. The distinction between buyer and seller was treated as a matter of detail in implementation, and the rule-making power was wide enough to support the amendment.

Conclusion: The amendment was intra vires and valid.

Issue (iii): Whether the rule providing taxation on each occasion of sale for unlicensed dealers in hides and skins was ultra vires because the Act contemplated taxation at a single point.

Analysis: The single-point concession in the Act was read with the licensing scheme and the provisions empowering assessment where conditions or licence requirements were not complied with. The combined effect of the relevant charging, licensing, and enforcement provisions showed that the concession at a single point was available only to licence-holders. Unlicensed dealers could therefore be assessed under the impugned rule, and the rule did not conflict with the Act.

Conclusion: The rule was not ultra vires, and unlicensed dealers were not entitled to insist on single-point taxation.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the sales tax assessments failed on all substantive grounds, and the petitions were dismissed without costs.

Ratio Decidendi: A pre-existing sales tax statute is not invalidated by Article 286(3) for lack of Presidential assent, and a rule made under the Act will be upheld if it regulates implementation consistently with the Act's licensing-based single-point concession scheme.

---