Retrospective tax validation provisions can defeat refund claims even after an earlier judgment favoured the assessee.

A retrospective sales tax amendment and validating provision can preserve past levies and collections despite an earlier judgment in favour of the assessee. The court noted that the later Haryana legislation repealed the earlier regime, expanded the definition of "dealer" retrospectively, and deeming prior action valid under the new Act. Applying the principle that a validating enactment may neutralise the effect of a prior judicial pronouncement, it held that the earlier ruling on employee supplies did not sustain a refund claim for tax already paid. The refund claim was therefore defeated and the petition dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to refund of sales tax already paid when the original decision in its favour was followed by a retrospective statutory amendment and a validating provision in the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973.

Analysis: The earlier decision holding the supply to employees not liable to sales tax was relied upon to claim refund. The subsequent Haryana legislation, however, repealed the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, retrospectively expanded the definition of "dealer" with effect from an earlier date, and contained a saving and validation scheme preserving prior action and deeming past levy and collection under the repealed regime to be valid under the new Act. The Court followed the principle that a validating enactment may neutralize the effect of an earlier judgment and sustain past tax levies and collections notwithstanding prior judicial pronouncements.

Conclusion: The retrospective amendment and validating provisions defeated the refund claim, and the petition was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A retrospective taxing amendment coupled with a validating provision can lawfully preserve and validate prior tax levies and collections notwithstanding an earlier judgment in favour of the assessee, thereby defeating a refund claim based on that earlier decision.

---