HM Journal

Retrospectivity cannot be presumed, unless there is a clear intention in the new rule or amendment.

Facts:

  1. Appellant is state and respondent is a licensee of department of excise duty.
  2. Appellant amended a new rule and tried applying retrospectively.
  3. High Court ordered in favour of respondent. Hence this Appeal.

Observation:

It is evident that when the state-initiated recovery proceedings it did not give credit of the amounts collected under the head of department management fee -as was required under pre-existing Rule 13. State main contention before this court is that amounts collected as departmental management fee were not adjustable.

The sequitur is that departmental management fee collected by the state, for the
period the vend (or outlet) was in its direct management, could not be recovered again, and had to be adjusted.

Judgment:

There is no infirmity with the judgment of the High Court. Appeal Dismissed.

Dissected by Advocate Hemdeep Moran,

Mail ID – [email protected]

Link to the Judgment –

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.