Retrospective withdrawal of a tax concession is invalid where the benefit had already accrued under an earlier order

Subordinate legislation cannot retrospectively withdraw an accrued tax concession or benefit already granted under an earlier Government Order; any withdrawal may operate only prospectively. The court therefore treated the later Government Order's retrospective supersession as ineffective to deprive the assessee of the benefit for the interregnum period. The assessee remained entitled to the concession for the relevant period, and the tax liability was required to be reassessed on that basis.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Government could withdraw retrospectively the tax benefit granted under the earlier Government Order and whether the assessee remained entitled to the benefit for the interregnum period.

Analysis: The benefit had been granted under the earlier Government Order for tax paid in excess of the prescribed rate on cement used in the execution of works contracts. The later Government Order purported to supersede the earlier one with retrospective effect and thereby nullify the benefit for the intervening period. The Court held that the executive, acting through subordinate legislation, lacked competence to take away accrued benefits retrospectively, though withdrawal could operate prospectively.

Conclusion: The retrospective withdrawal was invalid and the assessee was entitled to the benefit for the period from April 3, 2000 to October 31, 2000. The assessing authority was directed to reassess the tax liability accordingly.

Ratio Decidendi: Subordinate legislation cannot retrospectively withdraw a tax concession or benefit already made available, though it may be withdrawn prospectively.

---