1998 (3) TMI 664 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of rule 56 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Rules, 1957 regarding registration of sales tax practitioners.
2. Effect of retrospective amendment to rule 56 on pending applications for registration.
3. Continuation of eligibility for sales tax practitioners enrolled prior to the amendment.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Karnataka High Court, delivered by Justice Tirath S. Thakur, dealt with the interpretation of rule 56 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Rules, 1957 concerning the registration of sales tax practitioners. The petitioner, a graduate in economics, applied for registration under the rule but was denied registration due to a retrospective amendment to the rule that removed the qualification possessed by the petitioner. The petitioner challenged this denial through a writ petition, arguing that the rule in force at the time of application should govern his eligibility, citing the Supreme Court decision in A.A. Calton v. Director of Education (1983) 3 SCC 33.

The court acknowledged that the petitioner was eligible under the rule as it existed when the application was made, allowing registration for a person with a bachelor's degree in economics. However, the retrospective amendment to rule 56, effective from April 1, 1991, altered the qualifications required for registration. The court held that the legislative intent of the retrospective amendment was clear, intending to cover even pending applications. The court referred to the proviso to rule 56(2), stating that individuals enrolled prior to the amendment could continue to practice despite not meeting the new qualifications.

Ultimately, the court found that the retrospective nature of the amendment meant that the petitioner's application could not be granted under the previous rule. The court upheld the decision of the authorities to reject the petitioner's application, stating that there was no legal error or jurisdictional issue in their decision. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, with no orders as to costs, affirming the rejection of the petitioner's application for registration as a sales tax practitioner.