Delegated fiscal amendment power upheld where essential legislative policy remained intact and notice was reasonable.

The power to modify an extended fiscal enactment by notification was upheld where the modification did not alter the statute's essential legislative policy. The delegation to amend exemptions and the schedule was treated as ancillary and subsidiary, not excessive or uncanalised, because the Act itself supplied the governing policy and the delegate only worked out details. The substituted notice requirement was also sustained: statutory notice remained a real safeguard, and the notice period was found reasonable in the circumstances, giving a practical opportunity to object. The amended notice structure and the levy on durries were therefore valid.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the Central Government was competent to amend the terms of the notification extending the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act to Delhi by substituting a shorter notice requirement in section 6(2); (ii) whether the power to omit from or otherwise amend the schedule amounted to excessive or unfettered delegation of legislative power; and (iii) whether the substituted notice requirement and the impugned levy of sales tax on durries were invalid for want of reasonable notice.

Issue (i): whether the Central Government was competent to amend the terms of the notification extending the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act to Delhi by substituting a shorter notice requirement in section 6(2).

Analysis: The power conferred by section 2 of the Union Territories (Laws) Act, 1950, and the corresponding extended scheme was treated as wide enough to permit modification of the extended enactment through notification, so long as the modification did not alter the essential policy of the statute. The later Parliamentary amendment in 1959 was also treated as approving the statutory position as it then stood.

Conclusion: The modification was held to be competent and effective.

Issue (ii): whether the power to omit from or otherwise amend the schedule amounted to excessive or unfettered delegation of legislative power.

Analysis: The power to regulate exemptions by notification was held to be an ancillary and subsidiary legislative power within a fiscal statute. The statute laid down the legislative policy of taxation, while the delegate was entrusted only with working out details relating to exemptions and their withdrawal. Since the essential legislative policy remained intact, the delegation was not regarded as unconstitutional.

Conclusion: The delegation was held not to be excessive or uncanalised.

Issue (iii): whether the substituted notice requirement and the impugned levy of sales tax on durries were invalid for want of reasonable notice.

Analysis: The notice requirement was read as ensuring a real opportunity for the public to object before alteration of the exempted goods list. The court held that the phrase requiring such previous notice as the Government considered reasonable did not nullify the statutory safeguard, and that the thirteen-day notice issued in the facts of the case was reasonable for the compact territory of Delhi. The levy therefore complied with the statutory requirement.

Conclusion: The levy was held valid and not vitiated for want of notice.

Final Conclusion: The impugned notifications and the levy made under them were upheld, and the challenge to the amended notice and exemption structure failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A delegated power to modify an extended fiscal enactment is valid where it preserves the statute's essential legislative policy, and a notice requirement will be satisfied if the time afforded is reasonable in the circumstances and gives a real opportunity to object.

---