Retrospective tax relief can be limited prospectively when no vested refund right or detrimental reliance is shown.

A retrospective tax order may be confined to prospective operation where no vested right to retrospective refund is shown. The text explains that the later government order validly removed an earlier retrospective effect because the retrospective feature had been criticised and no enforceable basis existed for compelling refund consequences. It also states that filing refund applications, without actual refund or a substantive change of position, does not amount to acting upon the earlier order so as to block amendment. Promissory estoppel was held inapplicable because no clear representation acted on to the claimant's detriment was established.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Government was justified in withdrawing retrospective effect from the earlier Government Order and confining it to prospective operation only; (ii) Whether the petitioners could claim that the earlier order had been acted upon so as to preclude the amendment; (iii) Whether promissory estoppel barred the Government from making the amendment.

Issue (i): Whether the Government was justified in withdrawing retrospective effect from the earlier Government Order and confining it to prospective operation only.

Analysis: The earlier Government Order had purported to give retrospective effect from 8 July 1983, but the retrospective feature was criticised in the Legislature because it would have required substantial refunds. The later Government Order merely corrected the earlier position by removing the retrospective operation and making the order effective only from its own date. The Court treated this as a justified exercise of the Government's authority, particularly since there was no shown basis for compelling retrospective refund consequences.

Conclusion: The Government was justified in limiting the operation to prospective effect, and the challenge failed on this issue.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioners could claim that the earlier order had been acted upon so as to preclude the amendment.

Analysis: The only basis shown for alleged implementation was that refund applications had been filed. No refund had in fact been granted, and no substantive change of position was established on the petitioners' part. Mere filing of refund applications did not amount to such acting upon as would invalidate the later modification.

Conclusion: The contention that the earlier order had been acted upon was rejected.

Issue (iii): Whether promissory estoppel barred the Government from making the amendment.

Analysis: The Court found that promissory estoppel had no relevance on the facts. Since the retrospective grant itself was unjustified and no enforceable prejudice of the kind required for estoppel was shown, the doctrine could not be invoked to prevent the amendment.

Conclusion: Promissory estoppel did not apply against the Government in this case.

Final Conclusion: The petitioners failed to establish any legal ground to overturn the prospective modification of the earlier tax order, and the Government action was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: A governmental tax order granting retrospective relief can be validly modified to prospective operation where no vested right to retrospective refund is shown, and promissory estoppel will not apply absent a clear and enforceable representation acted upon to the claimant's detriment.

---