Statutory force of rules bars subordinate court review, while provisional sales tax assessment machinery remains valid.

Where rules framed under the sales tax enactment were given statutory force, a subordinate criminal court could not itself declare them invalid under section 432(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure; it had to make a reference instead. The provisional assessment rules were also upheld because they operated as machinery for determining turnover and for levy, instalments, and collection, rather than as a charge inconsistent with section 3 of the Travancore-Cochin General Sales Tax Act. Accordingly, the rules were treated as intra vires and not repugnant to the charging provision.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a subordinate criminal court was competent to pronounce upon the validity of rules 10 and 11 made under the sales tax enactment, or was bound to make a reference under section 432(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure; (ii) Whether the rules providing for provisional assessment on estimated turnover were repugnant to section 3 of the Travancore-Cochin General Sales Tax Act and ultra vires the rule-making power.

Issue (i): Whether a subordinate criminal court was competent to pronounce upon the validity of rules 10 and 11 made under the sales tax enactment, or was bound to make a reference under section 432(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Analysis: The rules framed under section 24 were given statutory force by section 24(5), which provided that they should have effect as if enacted in the Act. Once the validity of such rules was challenged in a pending criminal case, the question became one of the validity of a provision to be treated as part of the Act itself. Section 432(1) prohibited a subordinate criminal court from declaring such a provision invalid or inoperative unless the High Court or the Supreme Court had already so declared.

Conclusion: The Magistrate was not competent to decide the validity of the rules and was bound to refer the question.

Issue (ii): Whether the rules providing for provisional assessment on estimated turnover were repugnant to section 3 of the Travancore-Cochin General Sales Tax Act and ultra vires the rule-making power.

Analysis: Section 3 made every dealer liable to pay tax for each year on the turnover of that year, while sections 3(4), 3(5), 24(2)(a) and 24(5) empowered the Government to prescribe the manner of determining turnover and the mode, instalments, and collection of tax. The scheme of the sales tax enactment differed from the Income-tax Act, and provisional assessment followed by final assessment and adjustment was treated as an administrative method of levy and collection within the legislative framework. The rules did not impose a tax inconsistent with the charging provision, but operated as part of the machinery for assessment and collection.

Conclusion: Rules 9 to 11 were held to be valid, not repugnant to section 3, and not ultra vires.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered by upholding the validity of the provisional assessment rules and by recognising the necessity of the statutory reference procedure before a subordinate criminal court could treat those rules as invalid.

Ratio Decidendi: Where subordinate legislation is given effect as if enacted in the parent Act, a subordinate criminal court cannot pronounce upon its invalidity under section 432(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and provisional assessment rules that operate as part of the machinery of assessment and collection are valid if they are authorised by the charging and rule-making provisions of the statute.

---