JUDGMENT MAHINDER NARAIN, J. This writ petition has been field by the petitioner who are dealers in dry fruits. By assessments made under the Sales Tax Act, certain sales of the petitioners were taxed at the rate of 3 per cent and others were taxed at the rate of 10 per cent. The provision under which these were taxed was section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act. At the relevant time, it reads as under : "8. Rates of tax on sales in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. - (1) Every dealer, who in the course of inter-State trade or commerce - (a) sells to the Government any goods; or (b) sells to a registered dealer other than the Government goods of the description referred to in sub-section (3); shall be liable to pay tax under this Act, which shall be four per cent of his turnover. 8. (2A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1A) of section 6 or sub-section (1) or clause (b) of sub-section (2) of this section, the tax payable under this Act by a dealer on his turnover in so far as the turnover or any part thereof relates to the sale of any goods, the sale or, as the case may be, the purchase of which is, under the sales tax law of the appropriate State, exempt from tax generally or subject to tax generally at a rate which is lower than four per cent (whether called a tax or fee or by any other name), shall be nil or, as the case may be, shall be calculated at the lower rate." By virtue of the abovesaid provisions, when the sale is made in the course of inter-State trade to a registered dealer, then the rate at which Central sales tax is payable is determined at the rate at which the local sales tax charges like sales of such items to tax. In case of sales to dealers, who are not the registered dealers, then the rate of tax to the unregistered dealer is 10 per cent. This is stated in section 8(2)(b), which reads as under : "8. In case of sales to dealers, who are not the registered dealers, then the rate of tax to the unregistered dealer is 10 per cent. This is stated in section 8(2)(b), which reads as under : "8. (2)(b) In the case of goods other than declared goods, shall be calculated at the rate of ten per cent or at the rate applicable to the sale or purchase of such goods inside the appropriate State, whichever is higher; ......" Section 8(2A) exempts the goods from tax, when those goods are exempt from tax on sales in the local Act, and if the goods are taxable under the a local Act, at a rate lower than 3 per cent, then such lower rate would apply even under the Central Sales Tax Act. This is so stated in section 8(2A). This concession is applicable when the tax on the local sales is lower than 3 per cent. This was the rate applicable in the year 1967-68. The limit was increased to 4 per cent on 1st July, 1975. The assessment orders in the instant case have imposed tax at the rate of 3 per cent when the sales took place to a registered dealer, and at 10 per cent when the sale took place to an unregistered dealer. The challenge in this case by the petitioners is on the basis of observations of the Supreme Court in the case of B. Shama Rao v. Union Territory of Pondicherry [1967] 20 STC 215. What the petitioners say is that the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, could not be extended to Delhi as was done in 1951, and the tax imposed under the Sales Tax Act of 1941. It is urged that on the reasoning given by the Supreme Court in B. Shama Rao v. Union Territory of Pondicherry [1967] 20 STC 215, the extension of the aforesaid Act to Delhi is bad. This contention is not available to the petitioners in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in In re Delhi Laws Act [1951] SCR 747. As regards the contention of the petitioners that essential legislative functions have been delegated by section 8(2A) of the Central Sales Tax Act, the matter has been considered by the Supreme Court in two judgments reported as [1974] 33 STC 219 [Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg. (Wvg.) Co. As regards the contention of the petitioners that essential legislative functions have been delegated by section 8(2A) of the Central Sales Tax Act, the matter has been considered by the Supreme Court in two judgments reported as [1974] 33 STC 219 [Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg. (Wvg.) Co. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner Sales Tax] and [1975] 35 STC 1 [International Cotton Corporation (P.) Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer, Hubli.] In [1974] 33 STC, at page 238, the Supreme Court observed as under : "The policy of the law in this respect is that in case the rate of local sales tax be less than 10 per cent, in such an even the dealer, if the case does not fall within section 8(1) of the Act, should pay Central sales tax at the rate of 10 per cent. If, however, the rate of local sales tax for the goods concerned be more that 10 per cent, in that even the policy is that the rate of Central sales tax shall be the same as that of the local sales tax for the said goods. The object of law thus is that the rate of Central sales tax shall in no event be less than the rate of local sales tax for the goods in question though it may exceed the local rate in case that rate be less than 10 per cent." The Supreme Court also noticed difference between the law which was struck down by the Supreme Court in the case of B. Shama Rao [1967] 20 STC 215 and that contained in section 8(2)(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act. In view of the fact that the Supreme Court has found that the provisions of section 8(2)(b) contained a legislative policy, it is not possible to hold that there has been delegation of essential legislative functions. In [1975] 35 STC the Supreme Court observed at page 8 as under : "All that is necessary now to add is that the rate applicable merely mean the rate applicable at the relevant point of time and not the rate applicable when section 8(2)(a) was enacted. In [1975] 35 STC the Supreme Court observed at page 8 as under : "All that is necessary now to add is that the rate applicable merely mean the rate applicable at the relevant point of time and not the rate applicable when section 8(2)(a) was enacted. The whole scheme of the Central Sales Tax Act is to adopt the machinery of the law relating to Sales Tax Acts of the various States, in cases where those States happen to be the appropriate States as also the rates prescribed by those Acts." The observations of the Supreme Court with regard to section 8(2)(b) apply equally to the provisions of section 8(2A). The legislative policy is to be found in the provisions of section 8(2A), and the said provision is not hit by the principle of delegation of essential legislative functions. As regards the penalties which have been imposed, the Central Sales Tax Act adopts the same procedure as are in the existence for the local Sales Tax Act, as per section 9 of the Central Act. As such there is no case made out for remission of the penalties. In this view of the matter, this writ petition fails, and the same is dismissed, with no orders as to costs. Writ petition dismissed.