Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!

Scanned Judgements…!

Checking relevance for V. Vincent Velankanni VS Union of India...

V. Vincent Velankanni VS Union of India - 2024 7 Supreme 514 : An Office Memorandum or Government Order cannot have retrospective effect unless it expressly provides for it or the intention is clearly implied. However, if the later order is merely a clarification of an earlier order (i.e., the earlier order was vague or ambiguous and the later one merely explains it without expanding its scope), it may be applied retrospectively.Checking relevance for Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit VS Manu...

Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit VS Manu - 2023 4 Supreme 204 : A clarification memorandum cannot be given retrospective effect when it withdraws an anticipated benefit or imposes an unanticipated burden; only a genuine clarification that merely clears doubts without expanding or altering the original provision may operate retrospectively.Checking relevance for S. B. Bhattacharjee VS S. D. Majumdar...

S. B. Bhattacharjee VS S. D. Majumdar - 2007 0 Supreme(SC) 760 : The court held that a clarification memorandum issued after the judgment, being explanatory or clarificatory, will have retrospective effect. This view is supported by citations to S.S. Grewal v. State of Punjab (clarificatory statutes are usually retrospective) and Commissioner of Income‑Tax v. Podar Cement (clarificatory amendments have retrospective effect).Checking relevance for Santhosh Maize & Industries Limited VS State of Tamil Nadu...

Santhosh Maize & Industries Limited VS State of Tamil Nadu - 2023 0 Supreme(SC) 603 : The court held that a clarification memorandum issued by the Commissioner under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act can have retrospective effect; the clarification is bound to be retrospective to give effect to the intended meaning of the statute.Checking relevance for University Of Kerala VS Merlin J. N. ...

Checking relevance for Mohit Kumar S/o. Sri Ranvir Singh VS State of U. P. Through Prin. Secy. Karmik Anubhag-2, Lko...

Mohit Kumar S/o. Sri Ranvir Singh VS State of U. P. Through Prin. Secy. Karmik Anubhag-2, Lko - 2021 0 Supreme(All) 428 : Yes. A clarification or explanatory memorandum issued after a judgment can have retrospective effect. The Supreme Court in S.B. Bhattacharjee v. S.D. Majumdar (2007) 10 SCC 513 held that a clarificatory order is retrospective, and this principle is reaffirmed in cases such as S.S. Grewal v. State of Punjab, CIT v. Podar Cement Ltd., and Allied Motors Ltd. v. CIT.

• Retrospective Effect of Clarification Memoranda - Main points and insights:
• Clarification or explanatory memoranda issued after a judgment can be given retrospective effect if they are deemed clarificatory in nature. For example, the clarification being explanatory and/or clarificatory, in our opinion, will have a retrospective effect. ["S. B. Bhattacharjee VS S. D. Majumdar - 2007 0 Supreme(SC) 760"]
• Courts have distinguished between clarificatory memoranda and substantive amendments or rules; clarificatory memoranda are generally given retrospective effect unless explicitly stated otherwise. ["DILIP KUMAR MEDHI and ORS vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS - Gauhati"], ["Ravindra Kumar Gautam vs Comptroller And Auditor General Of India - Central Administrative Tribunal"]
• The intention of the authorities is crucial; unless the memorandum explicitly states retrospective effect or it can be implied, such effect is usually denied. An Office Memorandum/Government Order cannot have a retrospective effect unless and until there is an express provision to make its effect retrospective or that the operation thereof is retrospective by necessary implication. ["Ravindra Kumar Gautam vs Comptroller And Auditor General Of India - Central Administrative Tribunal"]
• Many judgments emphasize that retrospective effect is not presumed and must be explicitly indicated, especially for rules affecting vested rights or substantive benefits. The law is well settled that an Office Memorandum cannot have a retrospective effect unless and until intention of the authorities to make it as such is revealed expressly or by necessary implication. ["T BINA DEVI vs STATE OF MANIPUR AND 3 ORS - Manipur"]
• Clarifications issued during pending proceedings are generally not given retrospective effect unless explicitly stated, to prevent injustice or violation of rights. The clarification issued in the office Memorandum dated 30.9.2004 can only be logically and reasonably understood if the year 2002 as recorded therein is understood as the year 2001. ["Iprocess Clinical Marketing Pvt. Ltd. vs Asst. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Taxes (Audit) Bengaluru - Karnataka"]
• In some cases, clarificatory amendments are considered to have retrospective effect, especially when they are procedural or explanatory and do not alter substantive rights. Clarification issued by way of amendments will certainly take effect retrospectively. ["R.GUNASEKARAN vs THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE - Madras"]
• Conversely, amendments or memoranda that impact vested rights or create new liabilities are typically not given retrospective effect unless explicitly provided. The impugned Official Memorandum dated 10.07.2018 issued with retrospective effect, thereby, affecting the vested and substantive rights of the petitioners. ["P.Manivannan vs Ministry of Finance - Madras"]
• Analysis and Conclusion:
• Overall, the prevailing legal principle is that clarification memoranda are presumed prospective unless they are explicitly or implicitly intended to have retrospective effect. Courts tend to favor prospective application to protect vested rights and ensure fairness.
• The nature of the memorandum (clarificatory vs. substantive) and the explicit language used are decisive factors. Explicit language indicating retrospective effect overrides general presumptions.
• Therefore, whether a clarification memorandum issued after passing of a judgment can have retrospective effect depends on its nature, content, and the intention of the issuing authority. Generally, unless expressly stated, such memoranda are presumed prospective.

References:- ["DILIP KUMAR MEDHI and ORS vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS - Gauhati"]- ["Meheboob Hassan VS State of West Bengal - Calcutta"]- ["Ravindra Kumar Gautam vs Comptroller And Auditor General Of India - Central Administrative Tribunal"]- ["T BINA DEVI vs STATE OF MANIPUR AND 3 ORS - Manipur"]- ["T BINA DEVI vs STATE OF MANIPUR AND 3 ORS - Manipur"]-407_2014)- ["R.GUNASEKARAN vs THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE - Madras"]- ["P.Manivannan vs Ministry of Finance - Madras"]