Retrospective delegated taxation invalid where the parent statute lacks express power for retrospective rule-making.

Statutory appellate and revisional remedies were not an effective bar to a writ challenge to the validity of a notification because those authorities could not examine vires, so the writ petitions were maintainable. Retrospective enhancement of lump-sum tax under amended Rule 39-A was invalid because the parent Act did not expressly authorise retrospective rule-making by the delegated authority. The enhanced levy could operate only prospectively, so tax at the higher rate could not be recovered for the earlier period and the impugned notification was quashed to the extent of its retrospective application.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petitions could be rejected on the ground that statutory appellate and revisional remedies were available. (ii) Whether the amendment to Rule 39-A and the notification enhancing lump-sum tax could be given retrospective effect from 1 October 1992.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petitions could be rejected on the ground that statutory appellate and revisional remedies were available.

Analysis: The remedies under Sections 39, 40 and 41 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 were not regarded as effective alternative remedies for a challenge to the validity of the notification, because the appellate and revisional authorities could not examine the vires of the notification.

Conclusion: The objection based on availability of alternative remedies was rejected, and the writ petitions were maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the amendment to Rule 39-A and the notification enhancing lump-sum tax could be given retrospective effect from 1 October 1992.

Analysis: The Court held that neither Section 64 read with Section 26 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 nor any other provision of the Act conferred power on the State Government to make or amend the Rules retrospectively. A delegate cannot create retrospective subordinate legislation in the absence of an express enabling power. The enhanced levy could therefore operate only prospectively.

Conclusion: The retrospective operation of the impugned notification was invalid, and the enhanced lump-sum tax could not be recovered for the period prior to the notification's prospective operation.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the retrospective levy succeeded, the notification was quashed to the extent of its retrospective application, and the petitioners were held liable only at the old rates for the relevant intervening period.

Ratio Decidendi: Delegated or subordinate legislation cannot be given retrospective effect unless the parent statute expressly authorises retrospective rule-making.

---