https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152456 Retrospective rule-making under section 26(1) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act was upheld because the statute expressly authorised the State Government to frame rules with retrospective effect, and such delegation was not excessive nor violative of fundamental rights. The retrospective amendment to rule 80(5)(ii) was therefore valid. However, a retrospective amendment does not revive a reassessment or revision power that had already become time-barred under the unamended rule unless revival is clearly stated or necessarily implied. On that basis, notices seeking to reopen assessments already barred were invalid, and the assessee succeeded on that issue. en-us Tue, 23 May 1978 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 03 Jul 2013 18:15:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152456 Retrospective rule-making under section 26(1) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act was upheld because the statute expressly authorised the State Government to frame rules with retrospective effect, and such delegation was not excessive nor violative of fundamental rights. The retrospective amendment to rule 80(5)(ii) was therefore valid. However, a retrospective amendment does not revive a reassessment or revision power that had already become time-barred under the unamended rule unless revival is clearly stated or necessarily implied. On that basis, notices seeking to reopen assessments already barred were invalid, and the assessee succeeded on that issue. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 23 May 1978 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152456