Retrospective delegated taxation rules require express statutory authority; a fiscal proviso could operate only prospectively.

Delegated fiscal rule-making cannot operate retrospectively unless the parent statute expressly or necessarily implies that power. Under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 and the Bombay Sales Tax Rules, 1959, the Government could frame rules on drawback, set-off and refund, but sections 42 and 74 did not confer retrospective rule-making authority. Because the proviso inserted in rule 41D(3)(a) imposed a fiscal burden rather than a merely beneficial or procedural change, it could take effect only from the date of publication of the notification on 10 August 1983 and not from 1 July 1982.

---

---

Issues: Whether the State Government had power, under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 and the Bombay Sales Tax Rules, 1959, to give retrospective effect to the proviso inserted in rule 41D(3)(a) from 1 July 1982.

Analysis: The statutory scheme empowered the Government to frame rules for the purposes of the Act and to make consequential provisions relating to drawback, set-off and refund, but neither section 42 nor section 74 contained express language conferring power to make rules with retrospective operation. The settled principle is that a delegate cannot assume retrospective rule-making power unless such power is expressly conferred or necessarily implied. The impugned proviso imposed a fiscal burden on the assessee and was not merely beneficial or procedural. The later publication of the notification on 10 August 1983 could not, in the absence of enabling power, validate retrospectivity from 1 July 1982.

Conclusion: The proviso to rule 41D(3)(a) was valid, but it could operate only prospectively from 10 August 1983 and not retrospectively from 1 July 1982.

Ratio Decidendi: A delegated authority cannot make subordinate legislation with retrospective effect affecting fiscal liability unless such power is expressly conferred by the parent statute or necessarily implied from it.

---