TaxTMI Login
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
TaxTMI 
Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court quashes retroactive tax, parties bear own costs. Delegated legislation can't apply retrospectively without authorization.</h1> <h3>Ranbir Singh Ram Gopal Versus State of Haryana and another (and other cases)</h3> The Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, quashing the notification imposing enhanced lump-sum tax retrospectively. The respondents were barred from ... - Issues:Challenge to the legality of enhanced lump-sum tax imposition with retrospective effect.Analysis:The petitioners challenged the legality of a notification dated September 2, 1993, imposing enhanced lump-sum tax with effect from October 1, 1992. The petitioners argued that the amendment in rule 39-A of the Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1975, cannot have retrospective effect. The respondents defended the retrospective levy, stating that the petitioners were aware of the impending enhanced tax. The Court considered the maintainability of the writ petition, noting that appellate and revisional authorities could not address the vires of the notification. The Court found merit in the petitioners' argument, stating that the State Government lacked the authority to frame or amend rules retrospectively. It held that delegated legislation cannot be enacted retrospectively without specific authorization. The Court referenced a previous case where a similar issue was declared invalid, supporting the current decision.The Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, quashing the notification dated September 2, 1993, to the extent it applied retrospectively from October 1, 1992. The respondents were prohibited from recovering enhanced lump-sum tax for the period between October 1, 1992, and September 1, 1993. The petitioners were directed to pay tax at the old rates for that period. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs. The judgment highlighted the principle that delegated legislation cannot have retrospective effect without explicit authorization, leading to the invalidation of the retrospective application of the enhanced tax.This judgment underscores the importance of statutory interpretation and the limits of delegated legislation. It clarifies that retrospective application of rules or amendments must be explicitly authorized by the enabling statute. The decision provides clarity on the scope of rule-making authority and upholds the principle that delegated legislation cannot alter rights retrospectively without proper legal basis.
TaxTMI 
