9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (12) TMI 899X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hya Pradesh Bakaya Rashi Saral Samadhan Yojana, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as, "the Scheme of 2002"). By order dated March 28, 2002, the respondents have declined to entertain the application preferred by the petitioner for benefit under the said scheme on the ground that the same is not permissible in cases where the benefit of instalments has been granted. The facts briefly are that, a post-survey assessment was completed ex parte vide order dated December 31, 1997 for the assessment period August 16, 1991 to March 31, 1995 and a demand of Rs. 2,26,195 thereof was raised. The petitioner preferred a revision against the said assessment order and the revisional authority vide order dated March 6, 1998 set aside the ex parte order with a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the tax, on January 14, 2002. During pendency of said application, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax vide his letter dated February 8, 2002 directed that a policy decision has been taken not to accept the "instalments granted cases" under the scheme. The competent authority, i.e., Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax, taking cue from the aforesaid direction dated February 8, 2002 informed and rejected the application filed by the petitioner for settlement under the scheme vide letter dated March 28, 2002. Being aggrieved whereof the petitioner has filed the present petition. During pendency of present petition, the petitioner has been proceeded against under sections 22(9)(d) and 22(4B) of the Adhiniyam of 1994, i.e., he has been subj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in paragraph 12 that even the cases wherein amount of arrear is due on April 1, 2001 and a facility of instalment has been granted, shall be covered by the Scheme. The precise issue raised and duly answered is in the following terms: IMAGE It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the aforesaid clarification was very much applicable when the petitioner filed an application for settlement under the scheme on January 24, 2002 and the same ought not to have been rejected on the basis of subsequent instructions issued by the Commissioner, Commercial Tax on February 8, 2002. The respondents on their turn seeks dismissal of the petition on the ground that the petitioner as per the policy decision arrived at and circulat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on [1986] 62 STC 122 (SC); AIR 1987 SC 2239 it was observed by their Lordships that ". . . authority which has the power to make subordinate legislation cannot make it with retrospective effect unless it is so authorised by the Legislature which has conferred that power on it. . ." In Income-tax Officer v. M.C. Ponnoose [1970] 75 ITR 174 (SC), at page 177; AIR 1970 SC 385, at page 387 their Lordships were pleased to observe: ". . . Where any rule or regulation is made by any person or authority to whom such powers have been delegated by the Legislature it may or may not be possible to make the same so as to give retrospective operation. It will depend on the language employed in the statutory provision which may in express terms or by nec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
