Declaratory amendments like “explanation “ inserted to a section are retrospective in nature
(i) CIT, Bombay v. M/s Gwalior Rayon Silk Manufacturing Co. Ltd. [1992] 3 SCC 326
(ii) Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/s Alps Theatre AIR 1967 SC 1437 = [1967] 3 SCR 181
(iii) Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Ahmedabad v. Gold Coin Health Food Private Limited [2008] 9 SCC 622
Non consideration of certain arguments before SC does not make its judgement lesser binding
The binding effect of a decision of Supreme Court does not depend upon whether. a particular argument was considered therein or not, provided that the point with reference to which an argument was subsequently advanced was actually decided.
Smt. Somavanti v. State of Punjab [1963] 2 SCR 774 and T. Govindraja Mudaliar v. State of Tamil Nadu [1973] 3 SCR 222.
It would not be appropriate for Court to direct that Circular should be followed and not decision of Court : SC in Rattan Melting & Wire Industries
Ratan Melting & Wire Industries, 2008 (12) STR 416. At paragraph 6 of the judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as follows “6. Circulars and Instructions issued by the Board are no doubt binding in law on the authorities under the respective statutes, but when the Supreme Court or the High Court declares the law on the question arising for consideration, it would not be appropriate for the Court to direct that the Circular should be given effect to and not the view expressed in a decision of this Court or the High Court. So far as the clarifications/circulars issued by the Central Govt. and/or the State Govt. are not concerned they represent merely their understanding of the statutory provisions. They are not binding upon the Court. It is for the Court to declare what the particular provision of statutes says, and it is not for the executive. Looked at from another angle, a circular which is contrary to the statutory provisions has really no existence in law
Lawyers presumed to Know law, not judges
There is presumption in law that lawyer knows the law but there is no absolute presumption that a judge should know the law. A Judge is only called upon to balance the two sides of an argument presented before him
Rajiv Narain Raina inPunjab and Haryana High Court in Nirmal Singh and Others vs. Tarsem Singh and Others [CR No. 3791 of 2013 (O&M) dated 01-05-2014]