GOSWAMI, C. J.:- The above Civil Rules are directed against the respondents to show cause why the proviso to Rule 21 of the Assam Sales Tax Rules, 1947, should not be declared null and void. In the first two Civil Rules, there was an additional prayer by amendment to declare the proceedings before the Sales Tax Authority as illegal and without any authority of law inasmuch as the sales in question were effected in the course of inter-State trade or commerce This latter point is not canyassed in the other two Rules, namely Civil Rules Nos. 164 and 316/66. 2. It is enough to take the facts of the Civil Rule No. 161 of 1966 for the purpose of deciding the points raised in these Rules. The petitioner-firm is a registered dealer under the Assam Sales Tax Act, 1947 (hereinafter called 'the Act') and its registration number is J.C.R. 1543. The petitioner-firm carries on business of sale and supply of parachute to the Director of Supply and Transport, North-East Frontier Agency (NEFA). The Head Office of the petitioner firm at Kanpur, on receipt of orders for supply of parachute, despatches the goods from Kanpur by rail or other transport for delivery to NEFA Administration. There Is a branch office of the petitioner at Jor­hat, which looks after the sale and supply of the goods. The petitioner-firm has been submitting half yearly returns in the prescribed forms to the Superinten­dent of Taxes, Jorhat, under the provi­sions of the Assam Sales Tax Act and the Rules framed threunder and was also assessed to tax by the said authority, and the firm also paid the assessed taxes. The petitioner states that it is required to furnish returns of the total turnover on half yearly basis as prescribed under Rule 21 of the Assam Sales Tax Rules, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). That on 1-3-66 the Superintendent of Taxes, Jorhat called upon the petitioner to submit return and pay tax up to 28-2-66 within 9-3-66 in the purported exercise of powers under the proviso to Rule 21. The petitioner takes exception to this notice as, according to it. It could not be called upon to furnish return for a period earlier than half yearly. According to it, it was liable to submit return for a period ending 31-3-66 within April, 1966. The petitioner takes exception to this notice as, according to it. It could not be called upon to furnish return for a period earlier than half yearly. According to it, it was liable to submit return for a period ending 31-3-66 within April, 1966. The- petitioner ultimately submitted the return on l8-3;66 under protest and claimed exemption under Section 7 of the Act in respect of the sales of parachute made during the period from 1-10-65 to 28-2-66. The petitioner, however, did not take any objection before the Superintendent of Taxes on the score of his want of authority to tax, alleging the sales being in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. It appears that the Superintendent of Taxes made the assessment order on 19-3-66 under Section 17 (4) of the Act in respect of the return period up to 28-2-66. The notice of demand directed the petitioner to pay the tax amounting to Rs. 55,974. 44 P. on or before 23-3-66. It is in the above circumstances that the petitioner obtained the rule. 3. It is contended on behalf of all the petitioners that the proviso to Rule 21 is beyond the power given to the State Government under Section 16, read with Section 52 (2) (f) of the Act. It is further submitted that the proviso is violative of Articles 14 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India. In the first two Civil Rules, there is a further contention that the sales in question are in the course of inter-State trade and commerce within the meaning of Section 3 (a) of the Central Sales Tax Act. 1956 and as such the Superintendent of Taxes had no autho­rity to assess in respect of these sales. 4. Regarding the first submission, we may read Section 16 (1) of the Act which is the material provision and runs as follows: "Every registered dealer shall fur­nish such returns of his total turnover by such dates and to such authority as may be prescribed." Under Section 2 (9) 'prescribed' means prescribed by rules made under this Act. Section 52 confers power on the State Government to make rules and the material provisions may be set out: "(1) The State Government may, subject to the condition of previous publication, make rules for carrying out the purposes of this Act. Section 52 confers power on the State Government to make rules and the material provisions may be set out: "(1) The State Government may, subject to the condition of previous publication, make rules for carrying out the purposes of this Act. (2) Without prejudice to the general­ity of the foregoing power, such rules may, in particular, prescribe xxx (f) the dates by which, and the authority to which returns shall be furnished; xxx (i) any other matter which is required to be or may be prescribed." In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 52, the Governor made the Assam Sales Tax Rules, 1947 "for carrying out the provisions of the same Act". Since the rules have got to be made by the State Government for fixing the dates by which returns are to be furnished by a registered dealer and also as to which authority these have sot to be presented. Rules 20 and 21 have been made keeping the mandate of Section 16 in view. These two Rules may be set out: "20. Every registered dealer shall furnish returns of his total turnover under Section 16 to the Superintendent in Form II. 21. The returns, during the first year of operation of the Act, shall be furnish ed for such period and within such times as may be notified by the Commissioner in the Official Gazette and thereafter half-yearly and within thirty days of completion of the half-year in respect of which returns are to be filed. Provided that the Commissioner may, by order in writing direct any such dealer to submit returns for periods less than a half-year at such intervals as may be specified in the order and may likewise, at any time, modify or annul his order." 5. It is submitted by the petition­ers that under Section 16 the dates have got to be directly and precisely fixed by the State Government. Rule 21 does not in those terms comply with the mandate of Section 16. The rule has given the power to the Commissioner to fix the dates and this is beyond the power of the State Government to do, in view of the provisions of Section 16 (1). This argument is clearly misconceived. Section 16 provides for a prescription by rules the dates by which returns have to be furnished. The rule has given the power to the Commissioner to fix the dates and this is beyond the power of the State Government to do, in view of the provisions of Section 16 (1). This argument is clearly misconceived. Section 16 provides for a prescription by rules the dates by which returns have to be furnished. The rules are made under Section 52 and the notification dated 24th December 1947 promulgating the rules clearly states that the rules have been made "for carrying out the provisions of the same Act." Section 52 gives general power to the State Government subject only to the condition of the previous pub­lication to make rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act. This is the general power given to the State Government under Section 52 (1). Sub-section (2) of Section 52 enumerates by (a) to (j), with out being exhaustive, the particular matters in respect of which the rules may be made and sub-section (2) opens with the clause "without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power", namely the general power conferred on the State Government under Section 52 (1). Reading Section 52 (2) (f) and (j) and the general power which the State Govern­ment has under Section 52 (1). we have no manner of doubt that the proviso to Rule 21 is well within the rule-making power of the State Government. The State Government is empowered to make rules for fixing dates for submission of returns and this purpose has been achieved by Rule 21 without violating the man date of Section 16, nor is it in excess of the requirement of Section 16 (1). Section 16 only empowers the State Government to make rules and the State Government can make rules directing how and by which authority- the dates may be fixed. Section 16 has not direct ed the State Government to fix the date by a notification. All that Section 16 has provided is that the State Government shall make rules and it is open to the State Government to make the rules in conformity with the mandate of Section 16 (1) and has clearly within the ambit of that power provided that the Commissioner shall notify in the official Gazette the dates in the manner laid down under Rule 21. When the Commissioner is authorised under Rule 21 to notify the dates, it is also within the power of the rule-making body to give the Commissioner incidental power to alter and modify those dates in suitable cases. The proviso itself lays down a guidance to shorten the period, to modify or annul the orders of the Commissioner notifying the dates and the orders have to be in writing which clearly shows that ordinarily the dates are as laid down under the rule but only in given cases for reasons recorded by the Commissioner, the dates may be different either according to the convenience of the party or according to the exigency of business or to prevent any other contingency detrimental to the interests of revenue. In the instant case, the Commissioner has passed his order on 8-3-66 (Vide Annexure I to the counter-affidavit) to the following effect: "Messrs. Indian Trades & Industries Corporation, College Road, Jorhat, have got contract for supply of parachutes to the D.S.T., N.E.F. Agency at Rowriah, Jorhat upto 31-3-66. It is learnt that the said dealer is likely to close their business in Assam immediately after the con tract is over on 31-3-66. As the dealer has no permanent residence in Assam, he is likely to leave Jorhat immediately after the contract is over and in that case it will be difficult for the Officers of the Department to realise the sales tax from him on sale of parachutes. In order to protect the revenue of the State, the dealer may be directed under the pro viso to Rule 21 of the Assam Sales Tax Rules, 1947 to submit return of turnover for period from 1-10-65 to 28-2-66 to the Superintendent of Taxes. Jorhat on or be fore 15-3-66. Issue notice accordingly." The above order is in conformity with the proviso to Rule 21. which is a valid pro vision of law as found above. There is, therefore, no substance in the first contention of the petitioners. The decision in AIR 1955 SC 188 , Ganpati Singhji v. State of Ajmer relied on by Mr. Lahiri does not apply to the facts of the pre sent case. 6. which is a valid pro vision of law as found above. There is, therefore, no substance in the first contention of the petitioners. The decision in AIR 1955 SC 188 , Ganpati Singhji v. State of Ajmer relied on by Mr. Lahiri does not apply to the facts of the pre sent case. 6. Regarding the second objection on the score of violation of Articles 14 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India, it is contended that the proviso gives the Commissioner an unguided uncontrolled arbitrary power in fixing the dates for submission of the return by picking and choosing any dealers according to his whim. The proviso is therefore clearly discriminatory and the petitioners have been discriminated from all other dealers who are placed in similar circumstances. We may note that the petitioners' chal­lenge is confined only to the proviso to Rule 21. We find as noticed above that the proviso is intended to deal with spe­cial cases under certain exigencies and there is sufficient guidance in it requiring the Commissioner to make an order in writing by which we understand that he will give his reasons for departing from the ordinary rule as laid down under the first part of Rule 21. While the dates notified under the first part of the Rule are published in the Official Gazette which bring the notified dates to the knowledge of everybody, in the case when the pro­viso is resorted to, the Commissioner has to pass an order in writing and communi­cate the same to the dealer concerned for his knowledge and compliance. We, therefore, find no trace of discrimination or arbitrariness in the proviso to attract the provisions of Article 14 of the Con­stitution, The dealers who will be gov­erned by the proviso will form a special class of their own apart from the general run of dealers who will be governed by the principal rule. Mere possibility that the proviso will be invoked in an arbitrary or mala fide manner is no rea­son to strike down the same under Arti­cle 14 of the Constitution. Even if any possible mala fide action under the pro­viso in an appropriate case may be chal­lenged in the court, the proviso, for that reason or for that contingency, cannot be struck down as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Even if any possible mala fide action under the pro­viso in an appropriate case may be chal­lenged in the court, the proviso, for that reason or for that contingency, cannot be struck down as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Since the proviso is valid and is not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, there is no foundation for the objection on the score of Arti­cle 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution. The submission of the learned counsel in this respect therefore fails. 7. Lastly, it is contended In the first two civil rules that the transaction which has taken place is in the course of inter-State trade and commerce within the scope of Section 3 (a) of the Central Sales Tax Act. This was a point which was never agitated before the primary authority. Although we have allowed the learned counsel of both sides to ad­dress us on the point, we agree with the learned Advocate-General, Assam, that the question will involve examination of facts and circumstances which are to be first brought to the notice of the authority at the first instance. We are not there-fore prepared to consider the question of law raised before us in an application under Article 226 of the Constitution and that also by way of an amendment after obtaining of the Rules. This question is therefore left open and we refrain from pronouncing any views on the merit of the controversy. 8. In the result, the petitions are dismissed. The Rules Nisi are discharged. The stay orders are vacated. There will be no order as to costs. D.M.SEN, J.:- 9. I agree. Petitions dismissed.