TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (8) TMI 678
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....amended by Central Act No. 15 of 2010 which received the assent of the Hon'ble President on 17.5.2010. The relevant provisions of the Amending Act read as under: "1(1). This Act may be called the payment of Gratuity (Amendment) Act, 2010. (2) It shall come into force on such date as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint. 2.In Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, in subsection (3), for the words "three lakhs and fifty thousand Rupees", the words "ten lakh rupees" shall be substituted." 4. In terms of sub-section (2) of Section 1 of the Amending Act, a notification was issued by the Government of India on 24.5.2010 appointing the said date as the date on which the Amending Act came into force. 5. The grievance of the appellants is that the tax has been deducted at source when the gratuity was paid to the appellants before the commencement of the Amending Act. The appellants have thus challenged the date of commencement as 24.5.2010 but asserted that it should be made effective from 1.1.2007 and consequently the appellants would not be liable for deduction of tax on the gratuity amount. 6. Certain pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction 113 of the Act is not beneficial to the assessee. On the contrary, it is a provision which is onerous to the assessee. Therefore, in a case like this, we have to proceed with the normal rule of presumption against retrospective operation. Thus, the rule against retrospective operation is a fundamental rule of law that no statute shall be construed to have a retrospective operation unless such a construction appears very clearly in the terms of the Act, or arises by necessary and distinct implication. Dogmatically framed, the rule is no more than a presumption, and thus could be displaced by outweighing factors." 8. Learned counsel for the appellants also referred to a judgment of this Court in D.S. Nakara & Ors. v. Union of India (1983) 1 SCC 305 to contend that the cut-off date as 24.5.2010 has created two categories of employees, first who have attained the age of superannuation before the said date and second who have superannuated on or after 24.5.2010. Such classification is illegal and arbitrary in nature. 9. On the other hand, Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, learned counsel for the Union has argued that D.S. Nakara's case deals with pensioners, who get recurring be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of upward or downward revision of the formula evolved later on in future unless the provision in this behalf expressly so provides retrospectively (downward revision may not be legally permissible even)...." 11. Similar view was taken in a judgment reported as Union of India v. All India Services Pensioners' Association & Anr. (1988) 2 SCC 580 wherein it was held that the pension is payable periodically as long as the pensioner is alive whereas the gratuity is ordinarily paid only once on retirement. This Court held as under: "8. From the foregoing it is clear that this Court has made a distinction between the pension payable on retirement and the gratuity payable on retirement. While pension is payable periodically as long as the pensioner is alive, gratuity is ordinarily paid only once on retirement. No other decision of this Court which has taken a view contrary to the decision of Thakkar and Ray, JJ. in Andhra Pradesh State Government Pensioners' Association case [(1986) 3 SCC 501 : 1986 SCC (L&S) 676] and to the decision in N.L. Abhyankar case [(1984) 3 SCC 125 : 1984 SCC (L&S) 486] has been brought to out notice. The observations made in these two cases are b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Third Amendment) Order, 1964, and the property in the goods having passed to the Government of Andhra Pradesh on the dates the supplies were made, the appellants had to be paid only at the controlled price obtaining on the dates the sales were effected and not at the increased price which came into operation subsequently." 15. In another judgment reported as Orient Paper and Industries Ltd. & Anr. v. State of Orissa & Ors. 1991 Supp. (1) SCC 81, it was held that since the executive has been empowered to choose the date of commencement of the Act, such delegation cannot be said to be case of excessive delegation. The Court held as under: "29. Even if the section were to be seen as a delegation of power, it is a power conferred on the government to give full effect to the policy behind the legislation. It is with a view to achieving that purpose that the executive has been empowered to choose the time, place and forest produce for bringing the Act into operation having regard to the particular facts and circumstances in the contemplation of the legislature. There is no excessive delegation in such statutory grant of power. [See Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg. (Wvg.) Co. Ltd. v. C....