https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128592 Rule 25 of the Mysore Sales Tax Rules, 1957 was sustained because the Legislature had fixed the charging policy under section 6 and capped the licence fee, so the rule-making power did not amount to excessive delegation. The levy under rule 25(4) was also upheld since a high incidence of tax does not by itself invalidate the levy, and the absence of a statutory appeal does not make it unlawful. Differential treatment between licensees and sales tax dealers did not violate Article 14 because the classes were not similarly situated. Retrospective operation was upheld for turnover before the rule commenced, and the statutory levy was affirmed in all material respects. en-us Mon, 30 Jul 1962 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 08 Apr 2013 17:55:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128592 Rule 25 of the Mysore Sales Tax Rules, 1957 was sustained because the Legislature had fixed the charging policy under section 6 and capped the licence fee, so the rule-making power did not amount to excessive delegation. The levy under rule 25(4) was also upheld since a high incidence of tax does not by itself invalidate the levy, and the absence of a statutory appeal does not make it unlawful. Differential treatment between licensees and sales tax dealers did not violate Article 14 because the classes were not similarly situated. Retrospective operation was upheld for turnover before the rule commenced, and the statutory levy was affirmed in all material respects. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Mon, 30 Jul 1962 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128592