Delegated power to fix limitation for revision applications upheld as a valid exercise of rule-making authority.

Section 20(3) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 contemplated revision applications subject to prescribed rules, and section 26 authorised rules on procedure, incidental matters, and the manner and time within which applications were to be made. Rule 66(2) of the Delhi Sales Tax Rules, 1951, which fixed the limitation period for revision applications, was therefore within the delegated rule-making power and not ultra vires. The contention that the Act did not permit prescription of limitation was rejected, and the challenge to dismissal of the revision application failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether rule 66(2) of the Delhi Sales Tax Rules, 1951, which prescribes the period of limitation for filing revision applications, was beyond the rule-making power conferred by section 26 of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941.

Analysis: Section 20(3) of the Act expressly contemplates revision applications subject to prescribed rules. Section 26 empowers the rule-making authority to carry out the purposes of the Act and, in particular, to prescribe the procedure and incidental matters relating to disposal of revisions, as well as the manner in which and the time within which applications are to be made. Rule 66(2) merely fixed the time limit for revision applications and therefore operated within the scope of the statutory delegation. The contention that limitation could not be prescribed under the Act was rejected.

Conclusion: Rule 66(2) is intra vires and valid; the challenge to the revision dismissal fails.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the parent statute authorises rules prescribing the procedure and the time within which applications are to be made, a rule fixing limitation for revision applications is a valid exercise of delegated legislative power.

---