Retrospectivity

However, amendments concerning procedural matters are generally deemed to have retrospective effect as they regulate the manner in which rights are enforced rather than altering the rights themselves.

General rule is that a notification cannot operate retrospective but in case it removes defects, superfluities or mischiefs from an existing notification to advance remedy for enforcement of existing rights, it can be applied retrospectively by the issuing authority or courts can identify the injury or hardship being removed and declare it accordingly, before holding it to apply retrospectively.

Petitioners were employees at the University and were aggrieved of refusal to continue higher education via subsequent notification at the University

University assailed that petitioners had not sought "No Objection Certificate" to admission for higher education

Validity

Petitioners could neither show that they had ever applied through proper channel or had got "No Objection Certificate" or "leave certificate" from competent authority before applying for admission

Getting of admission by petitioners did not clothe them with a vested right when it was obtained in violation of University Rules and Instructions

Asserted right not obtained in accordance with law could not be termed as vested right, preventing authorities from exercising their locus poenitentiae

High Court declined to interfere in the matter

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Every statute, prima facie, has prospective application unless it is expressly provided that same will have retrospective operation

Not necessary that a declaratory amendment would be applied retrospectively

Rule is that if a declaratory amendment is made to supply some obvious omission in previous statute or to 'explain' something only then subsequent declaratory amendment will have a retrospective application.

Tax/Fiscal statutes operate prospectively and not retrospectively unless clearly indicated by legislature.

Authorities assailed order-in-appeal on grounds that amendment in law was declaratory in nature and could be applied retrospectively

Validity

After amendment in S. 7(2)(ii) of Sales Tax Act, 1990 it was necessary that input tax adjustment was available to such importer only who was owner of imported goods and should be registered with sales tax department

Prior to amendment, no such condition was imposed under law

Requirement, in circumstances, was that person, who was claiming input tax adjustment should be holder of bill-of-entry cleared by customs department under S. 79 or 104 of Customs Act, 1969 irrespective of fact that who was importer of goods used in finished product

Language of statute was clear that only holder of bill-of-entry could be sufficient for claiming input tax adjustment

Phrase 'showing his sales tax registration number' was inserted in statute by amendment, (2003) therefore, it was not necessary before the said amendment (1996) that importer should be registered with sales tax department

Such registration was made mandatory by subsequent amendment in S.14 of Sales Tax Act, 1990 through Finance Act, 1998

High Court declined to interfere in order-in-appeal as input tax adjustment was available to taxpayer on bill-of-entry issued to their unregistered sister concern

Reference was dismissed in circumstances.

Plaintiff sought interim release of vehicles on grounds that same had been purchased prior to amendment in Import Policy and were only transported after amendment

Validity

Held, provisions of Para. 4 of Import Policy Order were applicable to such imports where Bill of Lading and Letter of Credit were established prior to issuance of amending order

Bill of Lading was subsequent in time to amendment in Import Policy, whereby, age limit of vehicle in question was restricted to five years and it was only on basis of Standby Letter of Credit that plaintiff sought relief

No protection was provided to any Standby Letter of Credit but only to Letters of Credit which were dealt with differently in banking industry

Matter of shipment was a private arrangement between plaintiff and supplier and once an amendment was in the knowledge, then there was no need to complete transaction

Supplier could have been requested not to make any shipment as there was enough time to withhold such shipments

No vested right existed as claimed by the plaintiff/importer

Bill of Lading in question did not involve banks in question which was normally a must in shipment affected on basis of irrevocable Letter of Credit

Goods Declaration in column of terms of payment stated that it was on collection of documents basis which was again contrary to terms of payment involved in imports through Letter of Credit

High Court declined to interfere in the matter as benefit of para 4 of Import Policy Order was not available to plaintiff

Application was dismissed in circumstances.

Order or notification which confers rights and are beneficial will be given retrospective effect and those which adversely affect or invade upon the vested right can not be applied with retrospective effect.

Insertion of S. 11(4A) in Sales Tax Act, 1990 by Finance Act, 2016 was indicative of the fact that during tax period under consideration i.e., July 2009 to October 2012, recovery of withholding tax by departmental authorities under S. 11(2) of Sales Tax Act, 1990 was not legal

Retrospective effect to levy could not be given being charging section and it was applicable prospectively from date of insertion, i.e., 01-07-2016

Provisions of S. 11(2) of Sales Tax Act, 1990 only dealt with situations where registered person failed to pay tax due on supplies made by him or had made short payment or had claimed inadmissible tax credit

Provisions of S.11(2) of Sales Tax Act, 1990 did not deal with situation where any registered person failed to withhold sales tax

Legislature inserted new subsection (4A) in S. 11 of Sales Tax Act, 1990 by Finance Act, 2016 empowering departmental authorities to recover withholding sales tax but such power was not available with the department under S. 11(2) of Sales Tax Act, 1990

Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue declared that subsection (4A) of S. 11 of Sales Tax Act, 1990 inserted through Finance Act, 2016 had no retrospective effect and was not applicable for tax period during December 2013 to January 2015

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Policies or Rules, the very foundation whereof lies on discrimination, unfairness and inequality, will result into despair and agony among the public in general

Every statute prima facie is prospective in nature unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective effect however, where the new law is made to cure an acknowledged evil for the benefit of community as a whole, it is not necessary that express provision be made to make a statute retrospective

If a statute is curative of previous law, retrospective operation is generally intended.

Retrospectivity, even in a procedural law was to be avoided, if it would affect an existing right or otherwise caused inconvenience or injustice to anybody

In absence of clear intention of the legislature to apply a provision of statute with retrospective effect, would always be deemed to be applicable prospectively.

Beneficial legislation, would not automatically apply retrospectively, unless it was consciously so sanctioned in explicit and unequivocal language.

Notifications and administrative orders, which infringe right of parties, could not be applied retrospectively.

Executive order and notification, which were detrimental or prejudicial to the interest of a person imposing liability or obligation, could not operate retrospectively

Executive order and notification which conferred a benefit or right, could be given retrospective effect

Any record/documents produced by a taxpayer during the course of adjudication proceedings, either at the original stage or at the appellate stage, if not discussed and controverted, and had gone unchallenged and unrebutted by the functionaries, would itself amount to admission of its legality and authenticity.

Where the legislature had given an enactment retrospective effect with clear intendment spelt out from its language, then no protection to the alleged vested rights of a party could be offered contrary to it

Legislature had the authority to promulgate or amend a law with retrospective effect by intendment.

Orders or notifications which confer rights and are beneficial would be given retrospective effect and those which adversely affected or invaded upon the vested right could not be applied with retrospective effect.