Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

I also find from the Mysore Act of 1957, that Section 13 of the Act was entirely recast in 1958. It would, I think be carrying the theory of referential legislation too far to assume that Section 9(2) of the Central Act 1956 purported to authorise the State Legislatures to impose liabilities in the nature of additional tax or penalties leaving their rates and conditions for their imposition also to be deter- mined by the State Legislatures as and when the State Legislatures decided to impose or amend them. It is, evident that these differ from State to State, and, in the same State, at different times. A conferment of such an uncontrolled power upon the State Legislatures could, if it was really intended, be said to travel beyond the province of permissible delegated legislation on the principles laid down long ago by this Court in Re-Delhi Laws' case (supra) as no guide lines are given in Section 9(2) about the nature, conditions, or extent of penalties leviable. If such a power was really conferred would it not amount to an abdication of an essential legislative function with respect to a matter found as item 92A of the Union List I of the Seventh Schedule so that, according to article 246(1) of our Constitution, Parliament has exclusive power to legislate on a topic covered by it ? As this question was not argued before us I would only say that the correct cannon of construction to apply in such a case is that we should so interpret Section 9(2) of the Central Act, if possible, that no part of it may conceivably be invalid for excessive delegation. The well known maxim applicable in such cases is : ut res magis valeat quami pereat.