20-03-2026, 02:04 PM
Notice and Decision under section 111 necessary before proceedings under section 122
2024 SCMR 700 CIR Millat Tractors
Head Notes:
2024 S C M R 700
[Supreme Court of Pakistan]
Present: Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Amin-ud-Din Khan and Jamal Khan Mandokhail, JJ
COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, LAHORE---Appellant
Versus
Messrs MILLAT TRACTORS LIMITED, LAHORE and others---Respondents
Civil Appeals Nos.87 to 106 of 2024 in Civil Petitions Nos.2447-L, 2448-L, 2601- L to 2606-L, 2765-L, 2787-L, 2834-L, 2901-L, 2915-L, 2928-L, 2944-L to 2946-L,
2992-L of 2022 and Civil Petitions Nos. 646-L and 647-L of 2023, decided on lst February, 2024.
(Against the judgment/order(s) of Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 09.06.2022, passed in ITR No.59534 of 2021, etc. and dated 12.01.2023 passed in ITR No.
79913 of 2022 and ITR No. 1420 of 2023).
(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)—-- ----Ss. 111 & 122 (as it existed prior to amendment by the Finance Act, 2020)—-- Unexplained income or assets---Amendment of an assessment---Notices issued under Sections 111 & 122(9) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 ( Ordinance )--- Whether a separate notice is required under Section 111 of the Ordinance or whether a notice under Section 122(9) is enough to initiate proceedings for amendment of the assessment on the grounds mentioned in Section 111 of the Ordinance---Held, that the proceedings under Sections 111 & 122 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 ( Ordinance ) are different and distinguishable in nature and cannot be subsumed---Before an assessment can be amended under Section 122 on the basis of Section 111, the proceedings under Section 111(1) are to be initiated, the taxpayer is to be confronted with the information and the grounds applicable under Section 111(1) through a separate notice under the said provision, and then the proceedings are to be culminated through an appropriate order in the shape of an opinion of the Commissioner---This then becomes definite information for the purposes of Section 122(5), provided the grounds mentioned in Section 122(5) are applicable---The taxpayer is then to be confronted with these grounds through a notice under Section 122(9) and only then can an assessment be amended under Section 122. The initiation and culmination of proceedings under Section 111 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 ( Ordinance ) becomes necessary before action can be taken under Section 122 to amend assessments on the basis of proceedings undertaken under Section 111. The information available with the department under Section 111(1) is mere information. It is only after the taxpayer is confronted with this information through a separate notice by calling for an explanation, and when no explanation is offered or the explanation is not satisfactory in the opinion of the Commissioner under Section 111(1), that it transforms or crystallizes into definite information for the purposes of action under Section 122(5) for amendment of assessment under Section 122. The taxpayer will then be confronted with the grounds applicable under Section 122(5) through a notice under Section 122(9) of the Ordinance. As such, where the Commissioner has formed an opinion against the taxpayer as to the fulfilment of one of the grounds mentioned in Section lll(l)(a) to (d) of the Ordinance, and is of the view that any of the grounds in Section 122(5) is applicable, the process under Section 122 is to be initiated to amend assessments through a notice under Section 122(9). Thus, unless the proceedings under Section 111(1) are initiated and completed, Section 122(5) cannot be given effect to and no notice under Section 122(9) can be issued for the purposes of amending an assessment through an addition contemplated under Section 111. After the amendment introduced in Section 122(5) of the Ordinance through the Finance Act, 2020, the words definite information acquired from an audit or otherwise have been substituted with audit or on the basis of definite information . Therefore, the interpretation rendered above as to the applicability of Section 122(5) may not be applicable to cases post 2020 and the effect of the substituted expression will have to be determined in an appropriate case in the future. Commissioner Inland Revenue v. Bashir Ahmed 2021 SCMR 1290; Commissioner Inland Revenue v. Faqir Hussain 2019 PTD 1282; Commissioner
Inland Revenue v. Ranipur CNG Station 2017 PTD 1839 and Commissioner Inland Revenue v. Muhammad Shafique 2015 PTD 1823 ref. Before an assessment can be amended under Section 122 on the basis of Section 111, the proceedings under Section 111(1) are to be initiated, the taxpayer is to be confronted with the information and the grounds applicable under Section 111(1) through a separate notice under the said provision, and then the proceedings are to be culminated through an appropriate order in the shape of an opinion of the Commissioner. This then becomes definite information for the purposes of Section 122(5), provided the grounds mentioned in Section 122(5) are applicable. The taxpayer is then to be confronted with these grounds through a notice under Section 122(9) and only then can an assessment be amended under Section 122. A notice under Section 111 can be simultaneously issued with a notice under Section 122(9), however, proceedings under Section 111 have to be finalized first in terms of an opinion of the Commissioner so as to constitute definite information, as is required under Section 122(5) of the Ordinance. Commissioner Inland Revenue v. Falah 2021 PTD 192; Commissioner Inland Revenue V. Faqir Hussain 2019 PTD 1828; Commissioner Inland Revenue v. Ranipur CNG Station 2017 PTD 1839 and Commissioner Inland Revenue v. Bashir Ahmed 2021 SCMR 1290 ref. Even where a notice under Section 111 is issued simultaneously with a notice to
amend an assessment under Section 122(9) of the Ordinance, no proceedings can be undertaken under the latter until the proceedings under Section 111 are finalized
and result in an opinion against the taxpayer. This is because, even if some basis for action under Section 111 is mentioned in a notice under Section 122(9), it cannot
constitute definite information for the purposes of Section 122(5). The proceedings under the notice issued under Section 122(9) can only be formally initiated when the requirement of definite information is satisfied under Section 122(5) after finalization of the proceedings under Section 111 through an opinion of the Commissioner. Therefore, where no opinion is formed against the taxpayer under Section 111, the proceedings under both provisions i.e., Sections 111 and 122
would lapse, and the notice under Section 122(9) would be of no legal effect. Where, however, there is an opinion formed against the taxpayer as definite information for the purposes of Section 122(5), the proceedings on the notice issued under Section 122(9) can formally proceed and shall be deemed to have commenced. It must also be noted that where the opinion formed against the taxpayer under Section 111 is materially different from what has been confronted to the taxpayer through the notice already issued under Section 122(9), and the Commissioner is of the View that another or different ground under Section 122(5) is applicable, a fresh or supplementary show cause notice under Section 122(9) must be issued to the taxpayer by confronting such ground(s) to the taxpayer. This is in view of the right to be treated in accordance with the law, and the principles of fair trial and due process enshrined in Articles 4 and 10A of the Constitution, respectively, and in terms of settled law that once a show cause notice is issued, the original adjudication on the said show cause notice can only be based on the grounds and allegations levelled therein. Commissioner Inland Revenue v. RYK Mills 2023 SCMR 1856; Collector Central Excise v. Rahm Din 1987 SCMR 1840 and Commissioner Inland Revenue v. Rose Food Industries 2023 SCMR 2070 ref. Two provisos have been added after Section 122(9) through the Finance Act, 2021 and further amended through the Finance Act, 2022, which provide for a time period from the date of issuance a show cause notice for making an order under Section 122. The said time period is to be considered as commencing on the day that the taxpayer is confronted with the opinion formed by the Commissioner under Section 111(1), as it is only then that the proceedings under Section 122 are to be formally taken up. This reconciliation harmonizes Section 111, its Explanation and Section 122(5) of the Ordinance.
(b) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)--- ----Ss. 111, Explanation & l22---Explanation introduced in Section 111 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 ( Ordinance ) pursuant to the Finance Act, 2021--- Effect---On a plain reading of the said Explanation, it appears that it is couched in clarificatory and declaratory terms for removal of doubt ---However, the intention behind the Explanation and the effect of adding the Explanation is to take away the right to a separate notice and proceedings under Section 111 if the grounds under Section 111(1)(a) to (d) are confronted to the taxpayer through a notice under Section 122(9) of the Ordinance---Therefore, in essence, it abridges the right to a separate notice and proceedings under Section 111 of the Ordinance, which was the requirement of the law---As a consequence, the Explanation takes away a substantive right of separate proceedings of the taxpayer, which otherwise existed prior to the introduction of the Explanation in Section 111---Explanation added in Section 111 of the Ordinance divests and affects a substantive right of the taxpayer to a separate notice and proceedings under Section 111, thus, the same would not have retrospective effect and would apply prospectively---Effect of the Explanation, therefore, is only to dispense with the requirement of a separate notice under Section 111, however, it cannot subsume two different and distinguishable proceedings under Sections 111 & 122---As such, while the Explanation dispenses with the requirement of a separate notice under Section 111, it does not dispense with the requirement that in case proceedings are initiated under Section 122(5) on the basis of definite information to be provided through Section 111, the proceedings under Section 111 are to be concluded first in the manner provided under the law and till such time, the proceedings under Section 122(9) cannot be given effect to---Therefore, as far as the cases prior to the Explanation are concerned, a separate notice is required to be issued under Section 111 before proceedings can be initiated under Section 122---Simultaneity of notices issued under Sections 111 & 122(9) is not of much consequence and the proceedings under Section 111 have to proceed first and be finalized before proceedings under Section 122 are formally taken up---After the introduction of the Explanation in Section 111 in the year 2021, a notice encompassing both the grounds under Section 111(1) and Section 122(5) can be issued under Section 122(9), however, the proceedings under Section 111 still have to be concluded first and thereafter the remaining part of the notice under Section 122(9) can be given effect to.
© Interpretation of statutes--- ----Exp1anation to an enactment---Rationale and scope---Purpose of an Explanation is ordinarily to explain some concept or expression or phrase occurring in the main provision---It is not uncommon for the legislature to accord either an extended or restricted meaning to such concept or expression by inserting an appropriate Explanation---Such a clarificatory provision is to be interpreted according to its own terms having regard to its context and not as to widen the ambit of the provision---As a general rule, an explanation added to a statutory provision is not a substantive provision in any sense of the term but as the plain meaning of the word itself shows, it is merely meant to explain or clarify certain ambiguities which may have crept in the statutory provision---Object of adding an Explanation to a statutory provision is only to facilitate its proper interpretation and to remove confusion and misunderstanding as to its true nature---It is relied upon only as a useful guide or in aid to the construction of the main provision---It is in this view of its effect that courts have normally given retrospective effect to such clarificatory or declaratory provisions in the shape of an Explanation---However, where the effect of the Explanation warps out of its normal purpose explained above, and acts as a substantive enactment or deeming provision, or enlarges substantive provisions of law or creates new liabilities, such an Explanation cannot be given retrospective effect unless the express language of the Explanation warrants such an interpretation.
M.N. Rao and Amita Dhanda in N S Bindra's - Interpretation of Statutes (12th Edition, 2016); Rehman Cotton Mills v. Federation of Pakistan 2016 PTD 1256; M. P. Tandon - Interpretation of Statutes (12th Edition, 2019); Rehman Cotton Mills V. Federation of Pakistan 2016 PTD 1256; Hussain Patel v. Habib PLD 1981 SC 1; Chief Administrator Auqaf v. Koura PLD 1991 SC 596; Hamid Ashraf v. Commissioner Inland Revenue 2020 SCMR 843; Commissioner of Income Tax v. Asbestos Cement Industries 1993 SCMR 1276; Kohinoor Sugar Mills v. Federation of Pakistan 2018 PTD 821; Commissioner Inland Revenue v. Trillium Pakistan 2019 SCMR 1643 and Commissioner of Income Tax V. Nazir Ahmed and Sons 2004 PTD 921 ref.
(d) Interpretation of statutes--- ----Retrospective and prospective application of law---Principles---A change in substantive law which divests and adversely affects vested rights of the parties shall always have prospective application unless by express word of the legislation and/or by necessary intendment/ implication such law has been made applicable retrospectively---As a cardinal principle of interpretation of statutes, tax statutes operate prospectively and not retrospectively unless clearly indicated by the legislature, therefore, retrospectivity cannot be presumed---Where an insertion or deletion of any provision in the rules or the law is merely procedural in nature, the same would apply retrospectively but not if it affects substantive rights which already stood accrued at the time when the un-amended rule or provision was in vogue---A provision curtailing substantive rights does not have retroactive operation unless the legislature elects to give it retrospective effect---Thus, where existing rights are affected or giving retroactive operation causes inconvenience or injustice, the Court will not favour an interpretation giving retrospective effect even where the provision is procedural.
2024 SCMR 700 CIR Millat Tractors
Head Notes:
2024 S C M R 700
[Supreme Court of Pakistan]
Present: Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Amin-ud-Din Khan and Jamal Khan Mandokhail, JJ
COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, LAHORE---Appellant
Versus
Messrs MILLAT TRACTORS LIMITED, LAHORE and others---Respondents
Civil Appeals Nos.87 to 106 of 2024 in Civil Petitions Nos.2447-L, 2448-L, 2601- L to 2606-L, 2765-L, 2787-L, 2834-L, 2901-L, 2915-L, 2928-L, 2944-L to 2946-L,
2992-L of 2022 and Civil Petitions Nos. 646-L and 647-L of 2023, decided on lst February, 2024.
(Against the judgment/order(s) of Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 09.06.2022, passed in ITR No.59534 of 2021, etc. and dated 12.01.2023 passed in ITR No.
79913 of 2022 and ITR No. 1420 of 2023).
(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)—-- ----Ss. 111 & 122 (as it existed prior to amendment by the Finance Act, 2020)—-- Unexplained income or assets---Amendment of an assessment---Notices issued under Sections 111 & 122(9) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 ( Ordinance )--- Whether a separate notice is required under Section 111 of the Ordinance or whether a notice under Section 122(9) is enough to initiate proceedings for amendment of the assessment on the grounds mentioned in Section 111 of the Ordinance---Held, that the proceedings under Sections 111 & 122 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 ( Ordinance ) are different and distinguishable in nature and cannot be subsumed---Before an assessment can be amended under Section 122 on the basis of Section 111, the proceedings under Section 111(1) are to be initiated, the taxpayer is to be confronted with the information and the grounds applicable under Section 111(1) through a separate notice under the said provision, and then the proceedings are to be culminated through an appropriate order in the shape of an opinion of the Commissioner---This then becomes definite information for the purposes of Section 122(5), provided the grounds mentioned in Section 122(5) are applicable---The taxpayer is then to be confronted with these grounds through a notice under Section 122(9) and only then can an assessment be amended under Section 122. The initiation and culmination of proceedings under Section 111 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 ( Ordinance ) becomes necessary before action can be taken under Section 122 to amend assessments on the basis of proceedings undertaken under Section 111. The information available with the department under Section 111(1) is mere information. It is only after the taxpayer is confronted with this information through a separate notice by calling for an explanation, and when no explanation is offered or the explanation is not satisfactory in the opinion of the Commissioner under Section 111(1), that it transforms or crystallizes into definite information for the purposes of action under Section 122(5) for amendment of assessment under Section 122. The taxpayer will then be confronted with the grounds applicable under Section 122(5) through a notice under Section 122(9) of the Ordinance. As such, where the Commissioner has formed an opinion against the taxpayer as to the fulfilment of one of the grounds mentioned in Section lll(l)(a) to (d) of the Ordinance, and is of the view that any of the grounds in Section 122(5) is applicable, the process under Section 122 is to be initiated to amend assessments through a notice under Section 122(9). Thus, unless the proceedings under Section 111(1) are initiated and completed, Section 122(5) cannot be given effect to and no notice under Section 122(9) can be issued for the purposes of amending an assessment through an addition contemplated under Section 111. After the amendment introduced in Section 122(5) of the Ordinance through the Finance Act, 2020, the words definite information acquired from an audit or otherwise have been substituted with audit or on the basis of definite information . Therefore, the interpretation rendered above as to the applicability of Section 122(5) may not be applicable to cases post 2020 and the effect of the substituted expression will have to be determined in an appropriate case in the future. Commissioner Inland Revenue v. Bashir Ahmed 2021 SCMR 1290; Commissioner Inland Revenue v. Faqir Hussain 2019 PTD 1282; Commissioner
Inland Revenue v. Ranipur CNG Station 2017 PTD 1839 and Commissioner Inland Revenue v. Muhammad Shafique 2015 PTD 1823 ref. Before an assessment can be amended under Section 122 on the basis of Section 111, the proceedings under Section 111(1) are to be initiated, the taxpayer is to be confronted with the information and the grounds applicable under Section 111(1) through a separate notice under the said provision, and then the proceedings are to be culminated through an appropriate order in the shape of an opinion of the Commissioner. This then becomes definite information for the purposes of Section 122(5), provided the grounds mentioned in Section 122(5) are applicable. The taxpayer is then to be confronted with these grounds through a notice under Section 122(9) and only then can an assessment be amended under Section 122. A notice under Section 111 can be simultaneously issued with a notice under Section 122(9), however, proceedings under Section 111 have to be finalized first in terms of an opinion of the Commissioner so as to constitute definite information, as is required under Section 122(5) of the Ordinance. Commissioner Inland Revenue v. Falah 2021 PTD 192; Commissioner Inland Revenue V. Faqir Hussain 2019 PTD 1828; Commissioner Inland Revenue v. Ranipur CNG Station 2017 PTD 1839 and Commissioner Inland Revenue v. Bashir Ahmed 2021 SCMR 1290 ref. Even where a notice under Section 111 is issued simultaneously with a notice to
amend an assessment under Section 122(9) of the Ordinance, no proceedings can be undertaken under the latter until the proceedings under Section 111 are finalized
and result in an opinion against the taxpayer. This is because, even if some basis for action under Section 111 is mentioned in a notice under Section 122(9), it cannot
constitute definite information for the purposes of Section 122(5). The proceedings under the notice issued under Section 122(9) can only be formally initiated when the requirement of definite information is satisfied under Section 122(5) after finalization of the proceedings under Section 111 through an opinion of the Commissioner. Therefore, where no opinion is formed against the taxpayer under Section 111, the proceedings under both provisions i.e., Sections 111 and 122
would lapse, and the notice under Section 122(9) would be of no legal effect. Where, however, there is an opinion formed against the taxpayer as definite information for the purposes of Section 122(5), the proceedings on the notice issued under Section 122(9) can formally proceed and shall be deemed to have commenced. It must also be noted that where the opinion formed against the taxpayer under Section 111 is materially different from what has been confronted to the taxpayer through the notice already issued under Section 122(9), and the Commissioner is of the View that another or different ground under Section 122(5) is applicable, a fresh or supplementary show cause notice under Section 122(9) must be issued to the taxpayer by confronting such ground(s) to the taxpayer. This is in view of the right to be treated in accordance with the law, and the principles of fair trial and due process enshrined in Articles 4 and 10A of the Constitution, respectively, and in terms of settled law that once a show cause notice is issued, the original adjudication on the said show cause notice can only be based on the grounds and allegations levelled therein. Commissioner Inland Revenue v. RYK Mills 2023 SCMR 1856; Collector Central Excise v. Rahm Din 1987 SCMR 1840 and Commissioner Inland Revenue v. Rose Food Industries 2023 SCMR 2070 ref. Two provisos have been added after Section 122(9) through the Finance Act, 2021 and further amended through the Finance Act, 2022, which provide for a time period from the date of issuance a show cause notice for making an order under Section 122. The said time period is to be considered as commencing on the day that the taxpayer is confronted with the opinion formed by the Commissioner under Section 111(1), as it is only then that the proceedings under Section 122 are to be formally taken up. This reconciliation harmonizes Section 111, its Explanation and Section 122(5) of the Ordinance.
(b) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)--- ----Ss. 111, Explanation & l22---Explanation introduced in Section 111 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 ( Ordinance ) pursuant to the Finance Act, 2021--- Effect---On a plain reading of the said Explanation, it appears that it is couched in clarificatory and declaratory terms for removal of doubt ---However, the intention behind the Explanation and the effect of adding the Explanation is to take away the right to a separate notice and proceedings under Section 111 if the grounds under Section 111(1)(a) to (d) are confronted to the taxpayer through a notice under Section 122(9) of the Ordinance---Therefore, in essence, it abridges the right to a separate notice and proceedings under Section 111 of the Ordinance, which was the requirement of the law---As a consequence, the Explanation takes away a substantive right of separate proceedings of the taxpayer, which otherwise existed prior to the introduction of the Explanation in Section 111---Explanation added in Section 111 of the Ordinance divests and affects a substantive right of the taxpayer to a separate notice and proceedings under Section 111, thus, the same would not have retrospective effect and would apply prospectively---Effect of the Explanation, therefore, is only to dispense with the requirement of a separate notice under Section 111, however, it cannot subsume two different and distinguishable proceedings under Sections 111 & 122---As such, while the Explanation dispenses with the requirement of a separate notice under Section 111, it does not dispense with the requirement that in case proceedings are initiated under Section 122(5) on the basis of definite information to be provided through Section 111, the proceedings under Section 111 are to be concluded first in the manner provided under the law and till such time, the proceedings under Section 122(9) cannot be given effect to---Therefore, as far as the cases prior to the Explanation are concerned, a separate notice is required to be issued under Section 111 before proceedings can be initiated under Section 122---Simultaneity of notices issued under Sections 111 & 122(9) is not of much consequence and the proceedings under Section 111 have to proceed first and be finalized before proceedings under Section 122 are formally taken up---After the introduction of the Explanation in Section 111 in the year 2021, a notice encompassing both the grounds under Section 111(1) and Section 122(5) can be issued under Section 122(9), however, the proceedings under Section 111 still have to be concluded first and thereafter the remaining part of the notice under Section 122(9) can be given effect to.
© Interpretation of statutes--- ----Exp1anation to an enactment---Rationale and scope---Purpose of an Explanation is ordinarily to explain some concept or expression or phrase occurring in the main provision---It is not uncommon for the legislature to accord either an extended or restricted meaning to such concept or expression by inserting an appropriate Explanation---Such a clarificatory provision is to be interpreted according to its own terms having regard to its context and not as to widen the ambit of the provision---As a general rule, an explanation added to a statutory provision is not a substantive provision in any sense of the term but as the plain meaning of the word itself shows, it is merely meant to explain or clarify certain ambiguities which may have crept in the statutory provision---Object of adding an Explanation to a statutory provision is only to facilitate its proper interpretation and to remove confusion and misunderstanding as to its true nature---It is relied upon only as a useful guide or in aid to the construction of the main provision---It is in this view of its effect that courts have normally given retrospective effect to such clarificatory or declaratory provisions in the shape of an Explanation---However, where the effect of the Explanation warps out of its normal purpose explained above, and acts as a substantive enactment or deeming provision, or enlarges substantive provisions of law or creates new liabilities, such an Explanation cannot be given retrospective effect unless the express language of the Explanation warrants such an interpretation.
M.N. Rao and Amita Dhanda in N S Bindra's - Interpretation of Statutes (12th Edition, 2016); Rehman Cotton Mills v. Federation of Pakistan 2016 PTD 1256; M. P. Tandon - Interpretation of Statutes (12th Edition, 2019); Rehman Cotton Mills V. Federation of Pakistan 2016 PTD 1256; Hussain Patel v. Habib PLD 1981 SC 1; Chief Administrator Auqaf v. Koura PLD 1991 SC 596; Hamid Ashraf v. Commissioner Inland Revenue 2020 SCMR 843; Commissioner of Income Tax v. Asbestos Cement Industries 1993 SCMR 1276; Kohinoor Sugar Mills v. Federation of Pakistan 2018 PTD 821; Commissioner Inland Revenue v. Trillium Pakistan 2019 SCMR 1643 and Commissioner of Income Tax V. Nazir Ahmed and Sons 2004 PTD 921 ref.
(d) Interpretation of statutes--- ----Retrospective and prospective application of law---Principles---A change in substantive law which divests and adversely affects vested rights of the parties shall always have prospective application unless by express word of the legislation and/or by necessary intendment/ implication such law has been made applicable retrospectively---As a cardinal principle of interpretation of statutes, tax statutes operate prospectively and not retrospectively unless clearly indicated by the legislature, therefore, retrospectivity cannot be presumed---Where an insertion or deletion of any provision in the rules or the law is merely procedural in nature, the same would apply retrospectively but not if it affects substantive rights which already stood accrued at the time when the un-amended rule or provision was in vogue---A provision curtailing substantive rights does not have retroactive operation unless the legislature elects to give it retrospective effect---Thus, where existing rights are affected or giving retroactive operation causes inconvenience or injustice, the Court will not favour an interpretation giving retrospective effect even where the provision is procedural.