<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1989 (5) TMI 49 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40103</link>
    <description>Section 59 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 does not operate retrospectively to reopen assessments already completed before its commencement. The provision was treated as materially different from the earlier rectification power under section 62, which was confined to mistakes apparent from the record, valuation errors, and omission of property. Because section 59 contained no express retrospective language and no necessary implication of retrospectivity could be drawn from its scheme, reassessment of a completed assessment could not be sustained. The principle applied was that subsequent legislation should not disturb vested rights without a clear legislative mandate.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 02 May 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 Jul 2014 15:45:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=78648" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1989 (5) TMI 49 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40103</link>
      <description>Section 59 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 does not operate retrospectively to reopen assessments already completed before its commencement. The provision was treated as materially different from the earlier rectification power under section 62, which was confined to mistakes apparent from the record, valuation errors, and omission of property. Because section 59 contained no express retrospective language and no necessary implication of retrospectivity could be drawn from its scheme, reassessment of a completed assessment could not be sustained. The principle applied was that subsequent legislation should not disturb vested rights without a clear legislative mandate.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 May 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40103</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>