Retrospective tax amendment applied to pending assessment proceedings after extension, while notice defects did not affect liability.

The amended proviso to Section 4(1) of the Bihar Sales Tax Amendment Act, 1949 was retrospective in its own terms, so when it was extended to Chotanagpore it governed assessment proceedings already pending there. The key question was not whether the extension notification itself made legislation retrospective, but whether an existing retrospective amendment applied to pending cases after extension. The Court also held that assessment jurisdiction did not depend on the validity or issue of notice, because the charging section created the liability and the assessment provisions were only machinery provisions. The reference was answered in favour of the State.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Bihar Sales Tax Amendment Act, 1949, as extended to Chotanagpore, governed assessment proceedings that had commenced before the date of extension.

Analysis: The amended proviso to Section 4(1) was retrospective in its own terms, and the notification issued under Section 92(1) of the Government of India Act merely extended the operation of that legislation to Chotanagpore. The question was not whether the Governor could by notification make legislation retrospective, but whether pending proceedings were governed by the retrospective amendment once extended to the area. The Court also held that the jurisdiction to assess did not depend on the issue or validity of the notice, since the charging section created the liability and the assessment provisions were only machinery provisions.

Conclusion: The amending Act governed the pending proceedings and the reference was answered against the assessee and in favour of the State.

---