https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275314 A procedural amendment to Rule 53 of the M.P. Minor Minerals Rules, 1996 could govern pending penalty matters as it changed the forum and mode of inquiry, and no vested right exists in a particular procedural forum. The Sub-Divisional Officer was therefore competent to proceed under the amended framework. However, the amendment could not be used retrospectively to impose penalty on the basis of inspections and notices issued before the amendment came into force, because retrospectivity in penal provisions must be clearly provided or necessarily implied. The penalty order was set aside to that extent and the matter remitted for fresh consideration under the applicable law. en-us Thu, 08 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 27 Sep 2018 06:41:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275314 A procedural amendment to Rule 53 of the M.P. Minor Minerals Rules, 1996 could govern pending penalty matters as it changed the forum and mode of inquiry, and no vested right exists in a particular procedural forum. The Sub-Divisional Officer was therefore competent to proceed under the amended framework. However, the amendment could not be used retrospectively to impose penalty on the basis of inspections and notices issued before the amendment came into force, because retrospectivity in penal provisions must be clearly provided or necessarily implied. The penalty order was set aside to that extent and the matter remitted for fresh consideration under the applicable law. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 08 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275314