Reassessment of subsidy orders lacked jurisdiction absent an enabling provision in the original scheme; later amendments did not cure it.

The Rajasthan Investment Promotion Scheme, 2003 did not originally make the reassessment machinery under the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003 applicable to subsidy orders, so the assessing authority lacked power to reopen them under Section 26. The 2008 amendment added only rectification under Section 33, which confirmed that reopening power was still absent. Although the 2010 and 2014 Schemes expressly applied the Act, those later provisions could not be imported into the 2003 Scheme. The 2018 amendment inserting Clause 9A operated only from 1 July 2017, and its limited retrospectivity could not be extended further back. The reassessment orders were therefore without jurisdiction, and the revision petitions failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether, for the relevant period, the provisions of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003 applied to the Rajasthan Investment Promotion Scheme, 2003 so as to empower the assessing authority to reopen the subsidy orders under Section 26, and whether the subsequent amendment could be applied retrospectively to validate the reassessment.

Analysis: The Scheme, as originally framed, did not contain any provision making the reassessment machinery under the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003 applicable to subsidy orders. The 2008 amendment to the Scheme introduced only rectification under Section 33, which showed that reopening power under Section 26 was still absent. The later Schemes of 2010 and 2014 expressly applied the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003, but those provisions could not be read into the 2003 Scheme. The 2018 amendment inserted Clause 9A with effect from 1/7/2017, and the limited retrospectivity expressly stated in the amendment could not be expanded to a prior period. In the absence of an enabling provision during the relevant period, the exercise of power to reopen the assessment was without jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The reassessment orders were rightly held to be without jurisdiction, and the revision petitions failed.

---