9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1974 (3) TMI 97 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax
Issues:
1. Retrospective application of an amendment in rule 4 of the Rules framed under the General Sales Tax Act, 1962. 2. Interpretation of the amended rule regarding the payment of licence fee. 3. Authority of the Government to make rules retrospectively. 4. Jurisdiction of the court under section 226 of the Indian Constitution to set aside actions of subordinate authorities based on erroneous interpretations. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: The main issue in this case is whether the amendment in rule 4 of the Rules framed under the General Sales Tax Act, 1962, would apply retrospectively to include licences issued before the date of the amendment. The petitioner argued that the amendment should apply prospectively, while the respondents contended that the amendment should govern existing licences as well. Issue 2: The court analyzed the language of the amended rule, which stated that a licence could be obtained on payment of an annual fee of Rs. 30. The court concluded that the rule was prospective in nature and only applied to licences obtained after the date of the amendment. Licences obtained before the amendment, such as the one held by the petitioner, were not subject to the increased fee mentioned in the amendment. Issue 3: The court discussed the legislative power to make rules retrospectively and concluded that the power to make legislation retrospective lies exclusively with the legislature and not with subordinate authorities like the Government. Since there was no express authority granted to the Government to apply the amended rule retrospectively, the court held that the circular issued by the Government based on a retrospective interpretation of the rule was erroneous. Issue 4: The court affirmed its jurisdiction under section 226 of the Indian Constitution to set aside actions of subordinate authorities based on erroneous interpretations of rules. The court held that the interpretation placed by the respondent on the amended rule was clearly erroneous and lacked legal authority, justifying the court's intervention to provide relief to the petitioner. In conclusion, the court allowed the petition, quashed the circular issued by the respondent, and restrained the recovery of any additional fee from the petitioner for the specified period. The court found that the actions of the respondents were without jurisdiction and irregular, leading to the court's intervention to rectify the situation.
|
