Retrospective validation and revival of a tax rule sustained earlier notices, assessments, and pending proceedings without a stay.

A validating statute may retrospectively cure defects in tax rules and sustain earlier notices and completed assessments despite an adverse prior judgment on publication requirements. The same reasoning upheld the 1957-58 pre-assessment notice and assessment as valid. The document also explains that when a temporary taxing ordinance expires without a contrary legislative intention, the earlier rule can revive for pending matters; on that basis, the 1958-59 notice and assessment under the revived rule remained effective. Pendency of writ proceedings without an interim stay did not by itself invalidate the assessment.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the pre-assessment notices and completed assessments for 1957-58 were valid in view of the validating legislation notwithstanding the earlier judgment striking down the rule for want of previous publication. (ii) Whether the expiry and repeal of the temporary ordinance and the later Act affected the validity of the pre-assessment notice and assessment for 1958-59 under rule 16(1), and whether the assessment made during pendency of the writ proceedings without a stay was invalid.

Issue (i): Whether the pre-assessment notices and completed assessments for 1957-58 were valid in view of the validating legislation notwithstanding the earlier judgment striking down the rule for want of previous publication.

Analysis: The validating Act expressly provided that no provision of the rules would be deemed invalid merely because the requisite previous publication had not been made, and further declared that taxes levied or collected and all acts and proceedings taken in connection with such levy or collection would be treated as valid notwithstanding any judgment, decree, or order of any court. The legislative competence to enact such a provision was not in dispute. The effect of the enactment was therefore to cure the defect retrospectively and to sustain proceedings already taken under the rule.

Conclusion: The pre-assessment notice and the completed assessment for 1957-58 were valid and the challenge failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the expiry and repeal of the temporary ordinance and the later Act affected the validity of the pre-assessment notice and assessment for 1958-59 under rule 16(1), and whether the assessment made during pendency of the writ proceedings without a stay was invalid.

Analysis: The temporary ordinance was of limited duration and did not evince an intention to abolish the earlier rule permanently. The statutory scheme preserved the possibility of reassessment and indicated that the earlier rule was not destroyed beyond revival. On the expiry of the temporary measure and in the absence of a contrary legislative intention, the earlier rule revived for matters not concluded under the ordinance. The assessment for 1958-59 had been completed after the ordinance period and the pre-assessment notice remained effective under the revived rule. As no stay had been obtained in the writ proceedings, the mere pendency of the petitions did not invalidate the assessment.

Conclusion: The pre-assessment notice and assessment for 1958-59 were valid, and the assessment completed during pendency of the writ proceedings was not invalid for want of stay.

Final Conclusion: The statutory challenge to the assessments failed in all respects, and the writ petitions were not maintainable on the grounds urged.

Ratio Decidendi: A validating statute may retrospectively cure defects in tax proceedings and sustain prior notices and assessments notwithstanding an earlier adverse judgment, and where a temporary taxing measure expires without a contrary intention, the earlier rule revives for pending matters unless a stay or other legal bar intervenes.

---