Retrospective tax amendment and assessment jurisdiction held prospective only, leaving prior assessment years governed by earlier law.

An amendment to the proviso to section 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act was held not to operate retrospectively because the amending legislation contained no clear indication of backward application. The court noted that retrospective effect was expressly provided elsewhere in the Act where intended, and the absence of such language here meant the pre-amendment law continued to govern the relevant assessment years. Because the proviso affected the Sales Tax Officer's jurisdiction to assess and levy tax in a particular State, it was treated as a substantive change affecting tax liability rather than a merely procedural one. The amendment therefore could not validate prior assessments against the unregistered dealer.

---

---

Issues: Whether the amended proviso to section 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act applied retrospectively so as to validate past assessments and reassessments against an unregistered dealer in respect of subsequent inter-State sales during movement of goods.

Analysis: The amended proviso introduced by section 6 of the Central Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1976 contained no clear indication of retrospective operation. The structure of the amending Act showed that where retrospective effect was intended, it was expressly provided, whereas no such indication accompanied the amendment to section 9. The relevant law for assessment is ordinarily the law prevailing in the assessment year unless the legislature clearly alters it. The amended proviso also affected the jurisdiction of the Sales Tax Officer to assess and levy tax in a particular State, and a change of jurisdiction is not merely procedural. It directly affected tax liability and therefore could not be treated as a procedural amendment applicable to pending assessments.

Conclusion: The amended proviso did not operate retrospectively, and the assessee could not be assessed in U.P. for the prior assessment years. The answer to the first question was in the negative and in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered by holding that the pre-amendment law governed the assessment years in issue, and the later amendment could not be used to fasten U.P. tax liability on the unregistered dealer.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of clear legislative intent, a taxing amendment affecting assessment jurisdiction operates prospectively and cannot be applied to completed or prior assessment years.

---