2008 (2) TMI 823

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner wants an adjournment of the matter, which we are not inclined to grant since the matter is an old one. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the materials on record, it appears that the crux of the matter centres round proper interpretation of two finance department notifications; one is dated August 16, 1990 (annexure 1) a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ther settled that laws are normally made prospectively but it can be made retrospectively also. If a law is to be made retrospectively, the Legislature must give clear indication to that effect in the law itself. In the absence of such a clear indication, law is to operate prospectively (see Keshavan Madhava Menon v. State of Bombay reported in AIR 1951 SC 128 at page 130 [paragraph 7]). This is p .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hey were issued in exercise of power under section 7 of the Act, quoted above. We, therefore hold both the aforesaid notifications dated August 16, 1990 and April 28, 1992 must be read to operate from the date of the notification and not before that. Any attempt to read them before the date of notification is not sustainable in law. Both the notifications are upheld but only prospectively, but .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X