Retrospective tax notifications need express statutory authority, and reassessment must rest on independent quasi-judicial decision-making.

A notification issued under a prospective taxing provision cannot be treated as retrospective unless the statute expressly authorises backward operation, and its validity runs from the actual date of issue. In fiscal law, exemption notifications are construed strictly, so a backdated operation stated in the notification does not extend its legal effect beyond what the parent Act permits. A reassessing authority must also exercise its own quasi-judicial judgment and cannot reopen an assessment merely on a superior authority's clarification without independent application of mind. The article concludes that the concessional rate applied and the reassessment and revisional orders could not be sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a notification issued under section 9(3) of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993, could be given retrospective effect from a date earlier than its issue, and whether its validity had to be counted from the date of issue; (ii) whether the reassessing authority could reopen assessment on the basis of a superior authority's clarification without independent application of mind.

Issue (i): Whether a notification issued under section 9(3) of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993, could be given retrospective effect from a date earlier than its issue, and whether its validity had to be counted from the date of issue.

Analysis: The statutory scheme provided that any notification issued under section 9(3) would not remain valid for more than three years from the date of its issue. The expression "date of its issue" was held to mean the actual date on which the notification was issued, so the period of validity must commence from that date. The parent enactment being prospective, the delegated notification could not operate retrospectively unless the statute clearly authorised such retrospective operation. In fiscal matters, exemption notifications must be construed strictly, and the benefit cannot be extended by treating the notification as operative from a back date merely because it so stated.

Conclusion: The notification could not validly be treated as retrospective, and it took effect only from the date of its issue.

Issue (ii): Whether the reassessing authority could reopen assessment on the basis of a superior authority's clarification without independent application of mind.

Analysis: The reassessing authority functioned quasi-judicially and was required to decide the statutory issue itself. Instead, it sought and acted upon a superior authority's clarification and reopened the assessment without independently determining the legal effect of section 9(3). Such conduct amounted to abdication of its own decision-making duty.

Conclusion: The reassessment based on the superior authority's clarification was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to the concessional rate for the relevant assessment year, and the reassessment and revisional orders could not stand.

Ratio Decidendi: A notification issued under a prospective taxing provision cannot be given retrospective effect in the absence of express statutory authorisation, and a quasi-judicial taxing authority must independently decide the issue placed before it.

---