Prospective operation of tax amendment defeats fresh reassessment notices after concluded proceedings were already quashed.

Section 21(4A) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 was held prospective and could not be used to revive assessment proceedings that had already been quashed and had long since concluded. The Court reasoned that retrospectivity cannot be implied merely because an amendment concerns procedure, especially where limitation has expired and a vested right has arisen; express words or necessary implication are required. Section 17 of the amending Act was treated only as a validating provision for past actions already taken, not as authority for fresh notices or reassessment proceedings. Accordingly, notices issued for fresh assessment, and all consequential proceedings, were quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether section 21(4A) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, inserted by the Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1992, applied retrospectively so as to sustain notices for fresh assessment in respect of assessment orders quashed long before 1 January 1992; and whether section 17 of the Amending Act validated or authorised such fresh proceedings.

Analysis: The insertion of section 21(4A) was not given express retrospective effect, unlike other amendments in the same Amending Act that were specifically made retrospective. The language of the new provision, referring to an order of assessment being quashed, did not justify an inference that it was meant to reopen ancient concluded matters. The Court held that retrospective effect cannot be implied merely because the provision relates to procedure, since expiry of limitation and conclusion of proceedings confer a vested right that cannot be taken away unless the Legislature expressly so provides or retrospectivity necessarily follows from the context. Section 17(1) was held to be only a validating provision for actions already taken and not a source of power for future notices initiating fresh assessment or reassessment.

Conclusion: Section 21(4A) was held to be prospective only and could not be invoked to support the impugned notices. Section 17 did not validate the notices or the subsequent proceedings.

Final Conclusion: The notices for fresh assessment and all consequential proceedings were quashed, granting relief to the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory amendment will not be treated as retrospective so as to reopen concluded proceedings or defeat a vested right unless retrospectivity is expressly provided or necessarily implied by the statutory context.

---