Retrospective amendment controls pending registration applications where the saving clause protects only existing enrollments.

A pending application for registration as a sales tax practitioner had to be tested under the amended qualification rule because the Karnataka Sales Tax Rules were expressly given retrospective effect from 1 April 1991. Although the unamended rule allowed a person with a bachelor's degree in economics, the retrospective amendment showed legislative intent that pending applications be governed by the revised criteria. The saving clause protected only persons already enrolled before the amendment commenced, so it did not preserve any right for a pending applicant to be considered under the former rule. The rejection of the application under the amended rule was therefore sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether an applicant for registration as a sales tax practitioner could claim consideration under the unamended qualification rule when, before the application was decided, rule 56 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Rules was retrospectively amended with effect from 1 April 1991 to the relevant qualification.

Analysis: Rule 56, as it stood when the application was made, permitted registration of a person holding a bachelor's degree in economics, subject to the Commissioner being satisfied about suitability. Although an applicant may ordinarily be considered under the rule in force on the date of application, the amending rules here expressly provided that the amendment would be deemed to have come into force from 1 April 1991. That retrospective operation showed a clear legislative intent that pending applications were to be governed by the amended qualification criteria. The saving provision protected only those already enrolled before commencement of the amendment, and therefore did not assist a pending applicant.

Conclusion: The application could validly be rejected under the amended retrospective rule, and no interference was warranted.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory amendment is expressly given retrospective effect, pending applications must be decided under the amended law, and no enforceable right to consideration under the prior rule survives unless the saving provision clearly preserves it.

---