1996 (12) TMI 382

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r Singh Ram Gopal, has been manufacturing bricks in village Ladrawan, District Rohtak. In terms of section 26 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and rule 39-A of the Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1975 (for short, "the Rules"), the petitioner has been paying lump-sum tax at the rates prescribed by the Government from time to time. By notification dated August 27, 1990, the amount of lump-sum tax was fixed for the period from April 1, 1988 to September 30, 1992. On September 14, 1992, the Government of Haryana issued a draft notification for revising the rates of the lumpsum tax. However, the final notification came to be issued on September 2, 1993 for charging the enhanced lump-sum tax. The ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....re, the petitioners cannot be non-suited on the ground of their failure to avail the alternative remedies. 7.. On the merits of the case, we find substance in the plea of the petitioners that the amendment made in rule 39-A of the Rules cannot be given retrospective effect. None of the provisions contained in the Act including section 64 read with section 26 empowers the State Government to frame or amend the Rules with retrospective effect. In the absence of such provision, the State Government which acts as a delegate of the Legislature cannot enact a rule with retrospective effect nor can it amend the existing Rules with retrospective effect. Legal proposition that the delegated/subordinate legislation cannot be enacted with retrospec....