Superseded tax rules do not revive automatically when later rules are struck down, absent express or implied revival.

A superseded rule does not automatically revive merely because the later rule replacing it is struck down as ultra vires for non-compliance with mandatory procedure. The court distinguished invalidity for want of legislative competence from invalidity of a duly empowered rule framed irregularly, and held that the State's power to regulate advertisement tax remained intact, but the earlier 2005 Rules did not spring back into force after the 2009 Rules were invalidated. As a result, tax demands founded on a supposed revival of the earlier regime had no authority of law, and the demand notices and consequential orders were liable to be quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the earlier advertisement tax rules, which had been superseded by the later rules and were not expressly revived, stood revived after the later rules were declared ultra vires, so as to justify demand of advertisement tax for the relevant period.

Analysis: The Rules, 2009 were framed in supersession of the earlier Rules, 2005. The later rules were struck down not for want of legislative power to regulate advertisement tax, but for failure to follow the mandatory procedure prescribed by the parent Act. The Court distinguished cases where an enactment is void for lack of competence or is constitutionally dead from the beginning, and relied on authority holding that when a prior rule has ceased to exist by substitution or supersession, it does not automatically revive merely because the later rule is invalidated. The judgment also noted that the State Government's power to act in the tax field remained intact, but the invalidation of the later rules did not undo the earlier supersession.

Conclusion: The Rules, 2005 did not revive upon invalidation of the Rules, 2009, and the impugned demands raised under the supposed revival of the earlier rules were without authority of law.

Final Conclusion: The demand notices and consequential orders were liable to be quashed, and the petitioners were not liable to pay advertisement tax on the basis of a non-revived superseded regime.

Ratio Decidendi: A rule that has been superseded or substituted does not automatically revive on the later rule being struck down, unless the legal framework expressly or by necessary implication brings the earlier rule back into force.

---