TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
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
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the retrospective insertion of section 29(3) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act barred refund of tax admitted in the dealer's returns and justified review of the earlier writ appellate order.
Analysis: Section 29(3), inserted by the validating amendment with retrospective effect, declared that no refund shall be allowed of tax or fee due under the Act on turnover admitted by the dealer in its returns. Once given retrospective operation, the provision was to be treated as part of the principal Act from the date of its insertion, so the earlier mandamus directing refund became inconsistent with the statute. A writ of mandamus cannot compel an authority to act in violation of a statutory prohibition. The court further held that, in its plenary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it could review and recall its earlier order where a subsequent retrospective amendment rendered that order erroneous on the face of the record. A contrary rule could not be derived from Rule 71 of the U.P. Sales Tax Rules, since a subordinate rule cannot enlarge or override the statute.
Conclusion: The retrospective amendment barred refund of the admitted tax and the earlier order directing refund was rightly reviewed and recalled; the special appeal succeeded and the writ petition failed.
TaxTMI 
