9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (1) TMI 137X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hed any justification for amending entry 2 and inserting entry 2A and Explanation 1 in the Schedule D of the Act with effect from May 17, 1988 by notification dated March 26, 1991. In the absence of any reasons enumerated for retrospectivity of the notification, its validity to that extent cannot be upheld. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed to the extent that the impugned notification shall not operate retrospectively. As a sequel, the liability, if any, of the petitioner shall be determined afresh by the assessing officer in accordance with law. - CWP No. 3396 of 1992 - - - Dated:- 5-1-2012 - KUMAR M.M. AND AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, JJ. For the Appellant : Avnish Jhingan For the Respondents : Vinod S. Bhardwaj, Additiona ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es power to the State Government to amend the Schedule but does not give any power for amendment with retrospective effect. In the present case, Schedule D to the Act has been amended retrospectively with effect from May 17, 1988 vide impugned notification. Hence the present writ petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Government did not have the power, by exercising delegated legislation, to issue notification which was to operate retrospectively from May 17, 1988. Reliance was placed on judgments of this court in Goel Brick Industries v. State of Haryana [2013] 58 VST 149 (P H); [2010] 37 PHT 440 (P H), Ranbir Singh Ram Gopal v. State of Haryana [2002] 125 STC 326 (P H); [2002] 19 PHT 289 (P H), Ram Gopal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clarifies the intention of the Legislature and adjustment has to be given in the light of the provisions contained in the Explanation itself. 6. The issue for consideration in this petition relates to whether the State Government is empowered to issue notification amending Schedule D retrospectively from May 17, 1988. 7. It would be expedient to refer to relevant entry of Schedule D of the Act before the amendment and after the amendment. Entry before the amendment reads thus: 2.Cereals (except paddy and rice) and pulses as defined in section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (i) When sold within the State to a person other than a registered dealer making use of the authority of his registratio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner otherwise than by way of sale: (1) within the State; (2) in the course of interState trade or commerce; (3) in the course of export out of the territory of India; or (b) used in the manufacture of tax free goods. (i) when purchased within the State by dealer liable to pay tax. (ii) in all other cases Explanation I.-Tax already paid on wheat at the last stage of purchase during the period from the 17th day of May, 1988, to the date of publication of this notification, shall be deemed to have been paid at the first purchase within the State by a dealer liable to pay tax under this Act a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... justification as to what was the relevance of the earlier date for fixing higher rate of tax. Conferment of exercise of power of giving retrospective effect in a subordinate legislation can be justified only if it is reasonable. Retrospective legislation may be justified if a provision is clarificatory or provision is for validating an earlier levy which may have been struck down or for any such purpose which may be permissible. In absence thereof, mere fact that there is legislative competence to legislate retrospectively cannot by itself be enough to justify retrospective levy. 9. The petitioner has been burdened with liability only on the basis of the aforesaid amendment by virtue of notification annexure P1 while passing the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
