Delegated rule-making on delivery notes upheld where statutory power supports prescribed particulars and no conflict with the parent Act exists.

Rule 27(1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Rules and Form No. 14 were upheld because they were supported by the Act's express rule-making power and did not conflict with the dealer's statutory obligation to issue bills. The Court treated section 27(1) as an independent substantive provision, while section 38 authorised the Government to prescribe delivery notes, bills of lading and related particulars. The distinction between wholesale and retail dealers was held to be intelligible, and the prescribed particulars in Form No. 14 were found not to create any legal infirmity or practical impossibility. The rule and form were therefore valid and not repugnant to the Act.

---

---

Issues: Validity of rule 27(1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Rules and form No. 14 prescribed thereunder, including whether they were ultra vires section 27(1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act and repugnant to the Act.

Analysis: Section 27(1) of the Act was treated as an independent provision requiring every dealer to issue bills for sales, while section 38 conferred specific rule-making power on the Government. The rule requiring delivery notes and bills of lading in prescribed form was held to fall within the express powers under section 38(2)(j-3), and the reference to commission agents and other mercantile agents under section 38(2)(j-4) supported the validity of the regulatory scheme. The Court also held that the distinction between wholesale dealers and retail dealers was intelligible, and that the prescribed particulars in form No. 14 did not create any legal infirmity or practical impossibility warranting invalidation.

Conclusion: Rule 27(1) and form No. 14 were upheld as intra vires and not repugnant to section 27(1) of the Act.

Ratio Decidendi: A delegated rule prescribing delivery notes and related particulars is valid where it is supported by express statutory rule-making power and does not conflict with the substantive obligation imposed by the parent Act.

---