Retrospective validation of sales tax levy does not permit recovery of refunded sums without express statutory machinery.

A retrospective validating Act can treat pre-1 April 1954 sales tax collections as part of a dealer's turnover and nullify contrary orders, judgments and departmental findings, thereby sustaining the underlying levy. However, recovery of sums already refunded must still rest on an express statutory recovery mechanism. Rule 12 of the Turnover and Assessment Rules was confined to the original assessment process and could not be stretched to issue fresh demands for refunded amounts. Where assessment has been altered in appeal or revision, recovery or refund must proceed under the specific provisions governing that stage.

---

---

Issues: Whether the validating statute made sales tax collections by a dealer before 1 April 1954 part of the dealer's turnover and nullified contrary judicial and departmental orders; and whether notices issued under rule 12 could be used to recover amounts earlier refunded pursuant to the now-invalidated refund orders.

Analysis: The validating Act retrospectively declared that amounts collected by a dealer by way of sales tax before 1 April 1954 formed part of turnover, and it further rendered contrary findings, orders and judgments void and of no effect. On that basis, the refunded amounts ceased to be retainable by the petitioners. But rule 12 of the Turnover and Assessment Rules was confined to the original assessment process, where a notice in Form B or Form C could be issued only on the basis of the provisional assessment and the final assessment made under that rule. Where an assessment is altered in appeal or revision, separate provisions such as rules 14-A and 15(2) govern recovery or refund. A validating statute may nullify the legal effect of prior orders, but the recovery must still be supported by an applicable statutory machinery. No provision in rule 12 authorized a fresh demand to recoup money already refunded under a valid order, merely because a later statute had retrospectively validated the assessment.

Conclusion: The validating Act sustained the levy on sales tax collected from customers, but the notices under rule 12 were invalid and could not be used to recover the refunded sums.

Final Conclusion: The petitioners were entitled to writ relief because the department lacked the statutory authority to recover the refunded amount by resort to rule 12, even though the underlying tax liability had been retrospectively validated.

Ratio Decidendi: A retrospective validating statute can nullify prior adverse orders and sustain the tax levy, but recovery of money refunded under such orders requires an express statutory machinery and cannot be effected by stretching a rule confined to the original assessment.

---