Retrospective delegation cannot cure a jurisdictional defect in reassessment orders that were void when made.

Retrospective delegated legislation could not cure a jurisdictional defect in reassessment proceedings. Section 11-A vested reassessment power in the Commissioner, and the then-existing delegation framework did not include that power among the functions transferable to the Sales Tax Officer, so the reassessment orders were void when made. A later notification amending the delegation schedule with retrospective effect could not validate orders that were null ab initio, because subordinate legislation cannot retrospectively confer jurisdiction without clear legislative authority.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Chief Commissioner, in exercise of rule-making power, could retrospectively amend the delegation schedule so as to confer jurisdiction on the Sales Tax Officer and thereby validate reassessment orders that were void when made.

Analysis: Section 11-A vested reassessment power in the Commissioner, while delegation under section 15 was controlled by the restrictions prescribed under section 26. Rule 78 and the First Schedule did not originally include section 11-A among the delegable powers. The purported delegation to the Sales Tax Officer was therefore ineffective when the impugned orders were passed, and those orders were void for want of jurisdiction. The later notification, which amended the First Schedule with retrospective effect, could not cure that inherent defect. Retrospective subordinate legislation may regulate future action, but it cannot, without clear legislative authority, validate quasi-judicial orders that were null and void ab initio.

Conclusion: The retrospective amendment could not validate the reassessment orders, and the impugned orders were quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: Subordinate or delegated legislation cannot, in the absence of express authority, operate retrospectively so as to cure a jurisdictional defect and validate quasi-judicial orders that were void when made.

---