Page 79 - GSTL_7th May 2020_Vol 36_Part 1

2020 ] NELCO LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA 37
rant shall be null and void against the assignees. The words ‘in manner and
form, ‘refer only to the mode in which the thing is to be done, and do not
introduce anything from the Act referred to, as to the thing which is to be
done or the time for doing it.”
5. The view that we have expressed as to the interpretation of Section 8(4)
of the Act is also supported by the ‘Note’ to the form of declaration - Form
C - prescribed by Rule 12 of the Central Sales Tax (Registration & Turnover)
Rules, 1957. The Note states that the form is to be furnished to the pre-
scribed authority in accordance with the rules framed under Section 13(4)(c)
by the appropriate State Government. For the reasons expressed, we hold that
the third proviso to Rule 6(1) is ultra vires of Section 8(4) read with Section 13(3)
and (4) of the Act. It follows therefore that the assessee was not bound to
furnish declarations in Form ‘C’ before February 16, 1961 in the present
case. In the absence of any such time-limit it was the duty of the assessee to
furnish the declarations in form C within a reasonable time, and in the pre-
sent case it is the admitted position that the assessee did furnish the decla-
ration on March 8, 1961 before the order of assessment was made by the
Sales Tax Officer. We are accordingly of the opinion that the assessee tax
furnished the declarations in Form C in the percent case within a reasona-
ble time and there has been a compliance with the requirements of s. 8(4)(a)
of the Act. It follows that the High Court was right in quashing the order of
assessment made by the Sales Tax Officer and directing him to make a fresh
order of assessment taking into consideration the declaration forms fur-
nished by the assessee on March 8, 1961.”
Thus, the Supreme Court considered the phrase ‘prescribed manner’ in Section
8(4) of Central Sales Tax Act, and Section 13(4)(g) to declare the invalidity. As
our further analysis will show that the provisions under consideration of the Su-
preme Court and the context of the legislation were completely different than
one at hand.
26. It is necessary to examine the scheme of the Act, the terminology
employed conferring general rule-making power and the nature of the Legisla-
tion to adjudicate the charge of lack of rule-making power. When the court is
called upon to decide a challenge to the validity of subordinate legislation, it will
have to consider the nature, object, and scheme of the Act, and the area over
which power has been delegated under the Act.
27. The Respondents have stressed upon the distinctiveness of the Act
and constitutional amendments governing it. With GST, a large number of Cen-
tral and State taxes were subsumed in a single tax. The Constitution of India pro-
vides for segregation of fiscal powers between the Centre and the States essen-
tially with no overlap. However, by the 100th Constitution Amendment Act,
2016, for the first time, both Centre and the States concurrently have the power to
levy and collect GST. A mechanism for the joint operation of GST is evolved. Un-
ion levies CGST and the States levy SGST. The Parliament has exclusive power to
levy IGST on inter-State trade or commerce. The Goods and Services Tax Council
has been established. For dealing with the IT system, Goods and Services Tax
Network (GSTN) has been set up. The point to stress here is that with Goods and
Services Tax, the indirect taxation regime in India has undergone a complete
overhaul and it has brought about a unique amalgam of fiscal powers.
28. Another unique feature is the Chapter XX of the Act, which incor-
porates Section 140. The Petitioner bases it’s right to Section 140. The heading of
Chapter XX is ‘Transitional provisions’. The heading of Section 140 is ‘Transitional
GST LAW TIMES  7th May 2020  79