Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the State Government, while exercising delegated power under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, could amend Schedules C and D by notification with retrospective effect in the absence of express authority.
Analysis: The power conferred by sections 31 and 5(3)(b) authorised the State Government to add to or delete from the relevant Schedules by notification after giving notice, but did not expressly or impliedly authorise retrospective operation. A delegate exercising subordinate legislative power cannot assume the same plenary authority as the Legislature, and legal fiction or draft notifications cannot validate retrospective enforcement where the statute does not permit it. The retrospective part of the notifications was therefore beyond power, though the amendments themselves were not invalid for the future.
Conclusion: The State Government could not give the notifications retrospective effect, and they were operative only prospectively from the date of publication.
Final Conclusion: The impugned notifications were upheld only to the extent of prospective operation, and the petitioners were protected from retrospective tax liability based on the amended schedules before their publication.
Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of express statutory authority, delegated legislation cannot be given retrospective effect by notification.