Retrospective withdrawal of a tax concession was held ultra vires absent statutory authority, with refund questions left for reassessment.

Retrospective withdrawal of a statutory sales tax concession through subordinate legislation was invalid because delegated legislation can operate retrospectively only if the parent Act expressly or by necessary implication authorises it. The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the Government Order, insofar as it purported to withdraw the benefit under section 14-C of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 with retrospective effect, was ultra vires. The assessing authority was directed to complete the pending assessments and consider whether refund of tax paid in excess of the applicable rate was due, subject to examination of whether the tax burden had been passed on.

---

---

Issues: Whether G.O. Ms. No. 780, in so far as it gave retrospective effect to the withdrawal of the benefit under section 14-C of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, was valid; and whether the petitioners were entitled to consequential reassessment and refund relief.

Analysis: The benefit under section 14-C was introduced by the Legislature and the executive action sought to withdraw that benefit retrospectively through subordinate legislation. Retrospective operation of delegated legislation is permissible only when the enabling provision expressly or by necessary implication authorises such effect. In the absence of any legislative authorisation empowering the Government to withdraw the concession retrospectively, the executive could not curtail the benefit already conferred by the statute. The Court therefore held that the impugned Government Order, to the extent it operated retrospectively, exceeded the powers conferred by the Act. Since the assessments for the relevant period were yet to be completed, the assessing authority was directed to complete them and consider whether refund of tax paid in excess of 2 per cent was due, after examining whether the burden had been passed on.

Conclusion: The retrospective operation of the Government Order was invalid and ultra vires, and the writ petitions were allowed with consequential directions for assessment and consideration of refund.

Final Conclusion: The impugned retrospective withdrawal of the statutory concession could not stand, and the petitioners succeeded in obtaining judicial protection against the excessive levy for the relevant period.

Ratio Decidendi: Delegated legislation cannot operate retrospectively to withdraw a statutory benefit unless the parent enactment clearly authorises such retrospective power.

---