Retrospective validating legislation can cure a tax law defect and preserve prior assessments without barring writ relief.

A retrospective validating law within the State's legislative field can cure a defect identified in an earlier tax provision and sustain prior assessments and recovery proceedings. The Legislature's competence to enact sales tax legislation includes power to validate past action retrospectively by removing the legal infirmity on which the earlier challenge succeeded. Such validation does not curtail the High Court's writ jurisdiction under Article 226; it merely removes the basis of the prior invalidity. On that footing, the validating provision was upheld and the assessee was denied the refund and correction sought.

---

---

Issues: Whether the validating provision in Act 26 of 1962 was within legislative competence and could validly operate retrospectively so as to sustain the assessment and deny relief under Article 226.

Analysis: The levy had earlier been challenged on the footing that, as originally framed, section 7 did not authorise tax on purchase transactions. The Legislature thereafter enacted Act 26 of 1962 and, by section 6, gave retrospective effect to the 1958 amendment and validated prior assessments, refunds and recovery proceedings. The Court held that the State Legislature had competence to enact laws on sales tax and, where the subject lies within its field, it could also enact retrospective validating legislation to remove the defect identified by the Court. Such legislation did not curtail the power of the High Court under Article 226 or deprive the assessee of access to that remedy; it merely cured the vice in the law retrospectively, with the result that earlier invalidity no longer survived. The Court distinguished authorities dealing with orders passed under constitutional writ jurisdiction and accepted the principle that a competent Legislature may validate prior action by removing the legal infirmity on which the earlier decision rested.

Conclusion: The validating provision was upheld and the petitioner was not entitled to the refund or correction sought.

Final Conclusion: The retrospective validation stood and the writ petition failed because the Legislature had validly removed the basis of the earlier challenge.

Ratio Decidendi: A competent Legislature may enact retrospective validating law within its field to remove the defect declared by the Court, and such validation does not amount to an unconstitutional interference with the High Court's writ jurisdiction under Article 226.

---