https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101828 Section 31 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 was analysed as a permissible delegation because the legislature had itself fixed the charging scheme, identified taxable classes in the schedules, required notice before amendment, and retained policy control. The article also notes that inclusion of paddy in Schedule C was treated as consistent with the Act's fiscal scheme, since the exemption in section 5(2)(a)(ii) was limited and did not create a general immunity. It further explains that paddy and rice were regarded as distinct commercial goods, so their separate treatment did not amount to double taxation. en-us Fri, 04 May 1979 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 26 Jun 2014 15:24:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101828 Section 31 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 was analysed as a permissible delegation because the legislature had itself fixed the charging scheme, identified taxable classes in the schedules, required notice before amendment, and retained policy control. The article also notes that inclusion of paddy in Schedule C was treated as consistent with the Act's fiscal scheme, since the exemption in section 5(2)(a)(ii) was limited and did not create a general immunity. It further explains that paddy and rice were regarded as distinct commercial goods, so their separate treatment did not amount to double taxation. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 04 May 1979 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101828