Prescribed manner cannot create a filing deadline for sales tax declarations; ultra vires challenge lies in writ proceedings.

Section 24(1) reference jurisdiction under the Orissa Sales Tax Act was advisory and confined to questions of law arising from the Tribunal's order, so it could not be used to declare rule 12(10) ultra vires; that kind of validity challenge lay in writ proceedings. Rule 12(10), read with rule 7(1), was beyond the rule-making power under sections 8(4) and 13 of the Central Sales Tax Act because the phrase "in the prescribed manner" did not authorise a filing deadline for declarations. The declaration could be required only within a reasonable time before assessment, depending on the facts.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court had jurisdiction under section 24(1) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 to declare rule 12(10) of the Central Sales Tax (Orissa) Rules, 1957 ultra vires; and (ii) whether rule 12(10), read with rule 7(1), was ultra vires sections 8(4) and 13 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court had jurisdiction under section 24(1) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 to declare rule 12(10) of the Central Sales Tax (Orissa) Rules, 1957 ultra vires.

Analysis: The reference jurisdiction under section 24(1) was advisory and confined to answering questions of law arising out of the Tribunal's order. Since the Tribunal itself, being a statutory authority, could not pronounce on the vires of the rule under which it functioned, the High Court in that reference jurisdiction could not be asked to decide the validity of the rule. A challenge to the validity of the rule was, however, maintainable in writ proceedings.

Conclusion: The High Court had no jurisdiction under section 24(1) to declare the rule ultra vires.

Issue (ii): Whether rule 12(10), read with rule 7(1), was ultra vires sections 8(4) and 13 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.

Analysis: Section 8(4) requires the selling dealer to furnish the prescribed declaration in the prescribed manner, but that expression does not authorise the rule-making authority to impose a time-limit for filing the declaration. Rule 12(10) by itself required the declaration to be attached to the return, and when read with rule 7(1), which fixed the time for filing returns, it effectively compelled filing of the declaration within the same period. That amounted to prescribing a limitation for filing the declaration, which was beyond the rule-making power under sections 8(4) and 13. The declaration need only be furnished within a reasonable time before assessment, depending on the facts of the case.

Conclusion: Rule 12(10) was ultra vires to the extent it required the declaration to be attached to the return and thereby fixed a time-limit for filing it.

Final Conclusion: The writ court interfered with the Tribunal's appellate order, struck down the impugned procedural requirement in part, and remitted the matter for fresh decision in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: The expression "in the prescribed manner" in section 8(4) does not authorise the rule-making authority to impose a filing time-limit for declarations; such a limit can arise only where the statute itself so provides or where the declaration is required merely within a reasonable time before assessment.

---