Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 1980 (9) TMI SC This

  • Login
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

1980 (9) TMI 283 - SC - Indian Laws

Issues: Validity of retrospective deletion of a sub-rule in the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles (Taxation of Passengers and Goods) Act, 1952.

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision regarding the retrospective deletion of a sub-rule in the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Act. The issue revolved around whether Section 4(2) of the Act conferred the State Government the power to make retrospective rules. The Court concluded that no such power was granted to the State Government, rendering the retrospective deletion invalid. The Court emphasized that while the legislature can enact retrospective laws, delegates like the State Government cannot exercise the same power without explicit authorization. The appellant's arguments regarding the rule-making process and legislative approval were dismissed, as they did not indicate a mandate for retrospective rules. The Court clarified that the authority of the State Government under delegation did not extend to making retrospective rules, leading to the dismissal of the appeal with costs.

In summary, the judgment focused on the lack of authority conferred on the State Government to enact retrospective rules under Section 4(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Act. The Court highlighted the distinction between the legislature's power to enact retrospective laws and the limitations on delegates in exercising such authority. The appellant's contentions regarding the rule-making process and legislative approval were deemed insufficient to justify the retrospective deletion of the sub-rule. Ultimately, the Court ruled in favor of the High Court's decision, emphasizing the need for explicit authorization for retrospective rule-making powers.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates