TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the amended rule 4 enhancing the annual licence fee could be applied retrospectively to licences already issued before the amendment, and whether the circular directing recovery of additional fee for the intervening period was legally sustainable.
Analysis: The amended rule required a dealer to obtain a licence on payment of an annual fee of Rs. 30 and, on its plain terms, operated prospectively for licences obtained after the amendment. A licence already issued before the amendment had been validly obtained under the unamended rule on payment of the then prescribed fee. The rule-making power under section 26 did not expressly or impliedly authorise retrospective rule-making, and in the absence of such authority the Government could not give the amendment retrospective effect. The circular directing proportionate recovery for the period from 1st November, 1972, to 31st March, 1973, therefore rested on an erroneous interpretation of the amended rule and the consequential recovery action was without legal authority.
Conclusion: The amended rule did not apply retrospectively to licences issued before the amendment, and the circular requiring additional recovery for the earlier period was invalid; the relief sought by the petitioner was warranted.
Final Conclusion: The impugned demand for additional licence fee for the pre-amendment period was quashed, and the petitioner was protected from any recovery on that account.
Ratio Decidendi: A delegated rule prescribing a fee operates prospectively unless the parent statute clearly authorises retrospective operation, and any administrative direction inconsistent with that limitation is without legal force.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
