https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153339 Rule 27(1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Rules and Form No. 14 were upheld because they were supported by the Act's express rule-making power and did not conflict with the dealer's statutory obligation to issue bills. The Court treated section 27(1) as an independent substantive provision, while section 38 authorised the Government to prescribe delivery notes, bills of lading and related particulars. The distinction between wholesale and retail dealers was held to be intelligible, and the prescribed particulars in Form No. 14 were found not to create any legal infirmity or practical impossibility. The rule and form were therefore valid and not repugnant to the Act. en-us Mon, 30 Mar 1981 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 22 Jul 2013 16:23:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153339 Rule 27(1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Rules and Form No. 14 were upheld because they were supported by the Act's express rule-making power and did not conflict with the dealer's statutory obligation to issue bills. The Court treated section 27(1) as an independent substantive provision, while section 38 authorised the Government to prescribe delivery notes, bills of lading and related particulars. The distinction between wholesale and retail dealers was held to be intelligible, and the prescribed particulars in Form No. 14 were found not to create any legal infirmity or practical impossibility. The rule and form were therefore valid and not repugnant to the Act. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Mon, 30 Mar 1981 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153339