Charging provision remains enforceable where existing assessment machinery is sufficient, and a separate procedural rule is not required.

Section 5A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 was examined on two points: its constitutional validity and whether it could operate without separate procedural rules. The earlier binding decisions upholding the charging provision were followed, and the constitutional challenge to section 5A failed. On procedure, the Court treated section 5A as workable through the existing assessment machinery, because section 16(1) and Rule 18 already provided for returns and final assessment. The absence of a separate rule expressly naming section 5A did not make it inoperative or unenforceable, and the assessment under section 5A was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether section 5A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 is unconstitutional and ultra vires. (ii) Whether section 5A is inoperative or unenforceable for want of separate rules prescribing the procedure of assessment.

Issue (i): Whether section 5A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 is unconstitutional and ultra vires.

Analysis: The challenge to section 5A was examined in the light of the binding decisions upholding the provision. The Court noted that the validity of the charging provision had already been affirmed and that the earlier authorities negatived the constitutional objection. In that setting, the attempt to reopen the issue of constitutionality could not succeed.

Conclusion: The challenge to the validity of section 5A failed and the provision was held to be valid.

Issue (ii): Whether section 5A is inoperative or unenforceable for want of separate rules prescribing the procedure of assessment.

Analysis: Section 5A itself states that tax is payable at the rates mentioned in section 5. Section 16(1) requires assessment, levy and collection in the manner prescribed, and Rule 18 provides the assessment machinery by requiring returns and enabling final assessment on that basis. The Court held that section 5A is capable of being worked through the existing assessment procedure and that there is no necessity for separate or additional rules merely because section 5A is not expressly named in the relevant rule.

Conclusion: Section 5A was held to be workable and enforceable without any separate rules, and the objection failed.

Final Conclusion: The assessment under section 5A was upheld in full, and the writ appeal was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A charging provision is not rendered inoperative merely because it does not have a separate set of procedural rules where the existing statutory assessment machinery is sufficient to give effect to it.

---