Central Sales Tax amendments upheld: inter-State tax charge, rate structure, and assessment machinery were treated as constitutionally valid.

The amended Central Sales Tax scheme was analysed as a valid legislative framework, because section 6 imposed the inter-State sales tax charge directly, section 8 lawfully fixed different rate structures including nil rate in specified exempt cases, and section 9 permissibly adopted State assessment and collection machinery. The Court treated the assimilation of State machinery as a procedural adoption rather than unconstitutional abdication, while severing any doubtful part relating to penalty or third-party liability. The retrospective amendment to section 2(j) and insertion of section 6(1-A) were also upheld, as the protective savings provision avoided unlawful deprivation and the Article 19(1)(f) challenge was unavailable to a non-citizen company.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the amended provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, particularly sections 6, 8 and 9, suffered from unconstitutional abdication of legislative power by making the charge, rate structure and machinery for assessment depend upon the State sales tax law or State Government notifications; (ii) Whether the retrospective amendment to section 2(j) and insertion of section 6(1-A) violated Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether the amended provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, particularly sections 6, 8 and 9, suffered from unconstitutional abdication of legislative power by making the charge, rate structure and machinery for assessment depend upon the State sales tax law or State Government notifications.

Analysis: Section 6 was held to impose the charge of tax on inter-State sales directly, while section 8(2-A) did not exempt such sales from chargeability but only fixed the rate at nil where the corresponding intra-State sale was generally exempt under the State law. Section 8(5) was treated as a valid conditional provision based on public interest, and section 8 as a whole was found to reflect a deliberate legislative policy in fixing the rate structure for different classes of inter-State sales. Section 9(2) was upheld to the extent it adopted the existing State machinery for assessment and collection, the Court treating the procedural assimilation as permissible and severing any debatable part relating to penalty or third-party liability without affecting the rest.

Conclusion: The challenge based on abdication or self-effacement failed, and sections 6, 8 and 9 were upheld as valid.

Issue (ii): Whether the retrospective amendment to section 2(j) and insertion of section 6(1-A) violated Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The retrospective amendment was protected by section 10 of the Central Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1969, which relieved dealers from liability for the protected period where tax had not been collected on the earlier legal position. The Court therefore found no unconstitutional deprivation arising from retrospective taxation on the facts. The challenge was also unavailable to a non-citizen company invoking Article 19(1)(f).

Conclusion: The constitutional challenge under Article 19(1)(f) failed.

Final Conclusion: The amended Central sales tax scheme was sustained in all material respects, and the petition challenging the assessments and the constitutional validity of the amending provisions was rejected.

---