Retrospective rule-making cannot defeat a prior exemption application; rejection based on an already-set-aside decision was unsustainable.

An administrative rejection based on an earlier committee decision could not be sustained once that underlying decision had already been set aside, so the rejection was liable to be quashed. A later-notified rule could not be applied to an exemption application filed before its notification because the parent Act did not authorise retrospective rule-making; accordingly, the appellate rejection on that basis was incorrect. The matter was therefore remanded for fresh consideration of the appeal on the applicant's case. The governing principle stated is that a subordinate rule cannot operate retrospectively to defeat a pending application unless the enabling statute clearly permits retrospective effect.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the rejection of the application for exemption/deferment certificate could be sustained when the earlier committee decision relied on had already been set aside; (ii) Whether Rule 28-B(3)(f)(vi) of the Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1975 could be applied to an application filed before the rule was notified.

Issue (i): Whether the rejection of the application for exemption/deferment certificate could be sustained when the earlier committee decision relied on had already been set aside.

Analysis: The rejection by the lower committee was founded on the premise that similar applications had been declined by the higher committee in its meeting of July 1, 1999. That very basis had already been struck down in earlier proceedings, and once the foundation of the administrative decision was removed, the subsequent rejection could not stand.

Conclusion: The rejection founded on the earlier committee decision was unsustainable and liable to be quashed in favour of the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether Rule 28-B(3)(f)(vi) of the Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1975 could be applied to an application filed before the rule was notified.

Analysis: The rule was notified after the application for exemption had been submitted. Section 64(2)(ff) and Section 64(2)(oo) of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 did not confer power to make such rules with retrospective effect. Accordingly, the later rule could govern only applications made after its notification and not pending applications filed earlier.

Conclusion: Rule 28-B(3)(f)(vi) could not be invoked against the petitioner's earlier application, and the appellate rejection on that basis was incorrect in favour of the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The administrative rejections were set aside and the matter was sent back for fresh decision of the appeal on the petitioner's case.

Ratio Decidendi: A subordinate rule cannot be applied retrospectively to defeat an application filed before its notification unless the parent statute clearly authorises retrospective rule-making.

---