2018 (9) TMI 1470 - HC - Income Tax

Amended Rules Apply to Pending Cases: No Vested Rights in Procedure

The court held that amended procedural rules applied to pending cases, emphasizing no vested right exists in the procedure itself. The change of forum ... Change of forum versus procedural amendment - vested right to forum - delegation of authority to Sub Divisional Officer - competence to initiate proceedings for illegal extraction of minerals - application of amended procedural rule retrospectively to pending proceedingsChange of forum versus procedural amendment - vested right to forum - application of amended procedural rule retrospectively to pending proceedings - Whether the amendment to Rule 53 (delegating powers and altering penalty regime) effected a change of forum attracting protection of a vested right to the original forum or was a procedural alteration applicable to pending cases. - HELD THAT: - The Court examined the distinction between pure procedural amendments and changes of forum that affect vested rights. It considered precedent recognising that a right to a particular forum may be vested once proceedings are initiated, but emphasised that the present amendment to Rule 53 (w.e.f. 18.05.2017) introduced procedural changes including delegation of powers and altered penalty parameters. The Bench found the earlier writ court's direction - that pending cases must be disposed of as per the procedure prevailing on the date of joint inspection rather than under the amended procedure - to be incorrect. On the facts of this case, the amendment conferred competence on additional authorities and altered the procedural framework; therefore the amended provisions insofar as procedural aspects are concerned apply to the pending proceedings. The Court distinguished the cited authorities on their facts where references or proceedings had been validly initiated under the earlier regime in a manner that sustained the tribunal's jurisdiction, noting that the statutory scheme here (including Section 247(7) of the Code) vests mineral rights in the State and contemplates competence of the Sub Divisional Officer to deal with illegal extraction. [Paras 7, 10]The amendment to Rule 53 insofar as it effects procedure and delegation of authority is applicable; the earlier writ court's direction to the contrary is not sustained.Delegation of authority to Sub Divisional Officer - competence to initiate proceedings for illegal extraction of minerals - Whether the Sub Divisional Officer was competent to initiate and decide proceedings for illegal extraction of minerals under the Code and the Rules of 1996 after the amendment. - HELD THAT: - Relying on Section 247 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 and the statutory scheme governing minor minerals, the Court recorded that rights to minerals vest in the State and the State may assign powers to appropriate authorities. In particular, Section 247(7) empowers the Sub Divisional Officer to deal with illegal extraction, and the amendment to Rule 53 expressly delegated authority to additional officers (including Sub Divisional Officers). The Court therefore held that the Sub Divisional Officer who passed the impugned order on 08.12.2017 had competence to take proceedings in respect of illegal extraction of minerals and no illegality was made out merely on the ground of change of forum. [Paras 7, 10]The Sub Divisional Officer was competent to initiate and decide the proceedings; the review petitions do not establish error on this ground.Final Conclusion: The review petitions are dismissed. The Court held that the amended procedural provisions (including delegation to the Sub Divisional Officer) apply in the circumstances and that the Sub Divisional Officer was competent to deal with proceedings of illegal extraction of minerals; no error apparent on the face of the record was shown. Issues Involved1. Applicability of amended procedural rules.2. Vested rights in procedural law versus change of forum.3. Jurisdiction and authority of the Sub-Divisional Officer.4. Legal precedents regarding vested rights and procedural changes.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis1. Applicability of Amended Procedural RulesThe court addressed the applicability of amended procedural rules during the pendency of proceedings. It was noted that 'if the new Act affects the matters of procedure only then, prima facie, it applies to all the actions pending as well as future.' The petitioners argued for the disposal of their cases based on the rules in force at the time of inspection. However, the court held that 'all pending cases of illegal extraction are to be disposed of as per procedure prescribed under the amended provisions of the law,' emphasizing that no vested right exists in the procedure itself.2. Vested Rights in Procedural Law Versus Change of ForumThe petitioners contended that the change of forum from the Collector to the Sub-Divisional Officer constituted a vested right, citing the principle that 'the forum of appeal or proceedings is a vested right.' The court acknowledged this principle but clarified that the change of forum is a procedural matter. The court stated, 'A change of forum (from the court of Collector to Sub-Divisional Officer) is a matter of procedure,' and therefore, the amended rules would apply.3. Jurisdiction and Authority of the Sub-Divisional OfficerThe court evaluated the jurisdiction and authority of the Sub-Divisional Officer under the amended Rule 53 of the M.P. Minor and Mineral Rules, 1996. It was held that 'the Sub-Divisional Officer is competent to pass the impugned order,' but the penalty imposed retrospectively based on the amended rules was quashed. The matter was remitted back to the Sub-Divisional Officer to reconsider and decide the penalty as per the rules prevailing at the time of inspection.4. Legal Precedents Regarding Vested Rights and Procedural ChangesThe court referenced several legal precedents, including the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Orissa vs. Dhadi Sahu, which established that 'no litigant has any vested right in the matter of procedural law but where the question is of change of forum it ceases to be a question of procedure only.' The court also cited the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Regulatory Commission case, reinforcing that substantive rights are prospective unless explicitly stated otherwise.ConclusionThe review petitions were dismissed, with the court concluding that the Sub-Divisional Officer had the jurisdiction to decide the matter under the amended provisions. The court emphasized that the procedural changes did not affect the vested rights of the petitioners, and the amended rules applied to the pending cases. The decision of the Apex Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Orissa was found distinguishable based on the facts of the present case.