Validity of licence fee rule upheld where legislative limits, classification, and retrospective operation were all sustained.

Rule 25 of the Mysore Sales Tax Rules, 1957 was sustained because the Legislature had fixed the charging policy under section 6 and capped the licence fee, so the rule-making power did not amount to excessive delegation. The levy under rule 25(4) was also upheld since a high incidence of tax does not by itself invalidate the levy, and the absence of a statutory appeal does not make it unlawful. Differential treatment between licensees and sales tax dealers did not violate Article 14 because the classes were not similarly situated. Retrospective operation was upheld for turnover before the rule commenced, and the statutory levy was affirmed in all material respects.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether rule 25 of the Mysore Sales Tax Rules, 1957 was invalid for excessive delegation and want of legislative guidance; (ii) whether the levy under rule 25(4) was invalid because it was excessive and because no appeal was provided; (iii) whether the differential treatment between licensees and dealers liable to sales tax offended Article 14 of the Constitution of India; and (iv) whether rule 25 could validly apply to turnover for the period before the rule came into force.

Issue (i): Whether rule 25 of the Mysore Sales Tax Rules, 1957 was invalid for excessive delegation and want of legislative guidance.

Analysis: The legislative scheme fixed the charge under section 6 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 and also prescribed a maximum limit of licence fee of rupees two thousand per annum. The rule-making authority could operate only within that ceiling. Since the Legislature itself had set the upper limit, the rule did not amount to an abdication of legislative power.

Conclusion: The challenge based on excessive delegation failed and rule 25 was valid.

Issue (ii): Whether the levy under rule 25(4) was invalid because it was excessive and because no appeal was provided.

Analysis: A tax is not invalid merely because its incidence is high. The absence of a statutory appeal does not by itself invalidate the levy, as a right of appeal is conferred by statute and is not available as of right unless provided.

Conclusion: The levy was not invalid on either ground.

Issue (iii): Whether the differential treatment between licensees and dealers liable to sales tax offended Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: Dealers paying licence fee and dealers paying sales tax were not similarly situated. The distinction rested on a permissible classification and did not amount to hostile discrimination. The further complaint that only sales-tax payers could pass on the burden also did not establish an equality violation.

Conclusion: The Article 14 challenge failed.

Issue (iv): Whether rule 25 could validly apply to turnover for the period before the rule came into force.

Analysis: The rule was given retrospective effect. If it were not applied, the assessees would have been liable under section 5 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, which would have resulted in a higher tax burden. The retrospective application was therefore upheld.

Conclusion: Rule 25 validly operated retrospectively.

Final Conclusion: The statutory levy under rule 25 was upheld in all material respects, and the petitions were dismissed with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: A tax rule is valid where the Legislature fixes the essential charging policy and maximum incidence, and retrospective application will be sustained where it is authorized and does not transgress constitutional limits.

---