What did State of Madras v. R. Nand Lal & Co. lay down about the scheme of Section 13 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956?

It held that it was not within the competence of the State authorities under Section 13(3) and (4) to prescribe that a single declaration shall not cover more than one transaction; authority for such an injunction could have its source only in Section 13(1)(d), which is a Central Government power. Where a rule can be made only under Section 13(1)(d), the State Government cannot exercise that authority.

Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 — s.8(1) — s.8(4) — s.13(1)(d) — s.13(3) — s.13(4) — Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957 — r.12 — Central Sales Tax (Rajasthan) Rules, 1957 — r.17(20) — Declaration in Form C — Cancellation — Rule-making power — Ultra vires — Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 — s.8(4) — s.13(1)(d) — Form and particulars of the declaration — Held: The form of a declaration under Section 8(4) and the particulars it must contain are to be provided by rules framed by the Central Government under Section 13(1)(d). Furnishing that declaration is the condition precedent for the rate under Section 8(1). (¶11, 12) Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957 — r.12 — No power to cancel Form C — Held further: The Central Registration Rules prescribe the form of declaration but confer no power on any authority to cancel a declaration in Form C, in contrast to the express provision they make for cancelling a certificate of registration. (¶14) Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 — s.13(3), (4) — Limits of the State's rule-making power — Held further: None of the clauses of Section 13(4) empowers a State Government to provide for cancellation of a declaration. Its general power under Section 13(3) is circumscribed by the requirement that State rules not be inconsistent with the Central rules. (¶13, 15) Central Sales Tax (Rajasthan) Rules, 1957 — r.17(20) — Inconsistency with the Central rules — Held further: A State rule permitting cancellation of a declaration in Form C is inconsistent with the Central Registration Rules framed under Section 13(1)(d) and cannot be sustained. Appeal dismissed. (¶16, 18)

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. v. COMBINED TRADERS — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India