1969 (7) TMI 29 - SUPREME COURT

Whether the State Government could invest the Tahsildar with the powers of a Tax Recovery Officer under the sub-clause (ii) of clause (44) of section 2 of the Act read with sub-rule (2) of rule 7 of the Income-tax (Certificate Proceedings) Rules, 1962 with effect from a date prior to the date of the notification, i. e., retroactively or retrospectively?

Held that:- It is difficult to hold in the present case that the Taluka Tahsildar could be authorised by the impugned notification to exercise powers of a Tax Recovery Officer with effect from a date prior to the date of the notification.

As the legislature can legislate prospectively as well as retrospectively there can be hardly any justification for saying that the President or the Governor should not be able to make rules in the same manner so as to give them prospective as well as retrospective operation. For these reasons the ambit and content of the rule making power under article 309 can furnish no analogy or parallel to the present case. The High Court was consequently right in coming to the conclusion that the action taken by the Tahsildar in attaching the shares was unsustainable. Appeals dismissed.