RDER TIRATH S. THAKUR, J. - Registration of sales tax practitioners is regulated by rule 56 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Rules, 1957 which, inter alia, provides that on receipt of an application in the prescribed form from any one of those possessing the requisite qualifications, the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes may after making such enquiries as he may consider necessary, enrol the applicant as a sales tax practitioner. In terms of the said rule as it stood before the promulgation of the Karnataka Sales Tax (Amendment) Rules, 1991, any person who had a bachelor's degree with economics as one of the subjects was also eligible for registration. The petitioner, who claims to be a graduate in economics, applied for registration to the Commissioner and was called for interview after a written test, but before the Commissioner could determine his suitability for registration, the rule aforementioned was amended retrospectively with effect from April 1, 1991. So as to delete the qualification possessed "by the petitioner" from the prescribed educational qualifications. Consequently, the petitioner's request was turned down in terms of an endorsement dated March 27, 1993. An appeal filed by the petitioner against the said order also failed and was dismissed. Aggrieved, the petitioner has questioned the said orders in the present writ petition. 2. Counsel for the petitioner strenuously argued that the view taken by the respondents was legally untenable. He contended that since the petitioner was eligible as per the qualifications prescribed on the date he had filed the application, any amendment to rule 56 subsequent to the making of the said application could not deprive him of what was a right vested in him under the rule in its unamended form. Reliance in support was placed by him upon toe decision of the Supreme Court in A. A. Calton v. Director of Education (1983) 3 SCC 33 . 3. The material facts are not in dispute. It is not denied that as on the date the petitioner made the application, rule 56 permitted registration of a person possessing a simple bachelor's degree in economics also as sales tax practitioner subject to the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, being satisfied after making such enquiries as were considered necessary that the person making the application was suitable for such enrolment. Any amendment of rule 56 made prospectively could not have therefore deprived the petitioner of his right of getting registered on the basis of the rule position as it existed before such an amendment. To the same effect indeed is the view taken by the Supreme Court in A. A. Calton's case (1983) 3 SCC 33 relied upon by the petitioner. The difficulty however arises when we find that the amendment to rule 56 brought by the Karnataka Sales Tax (Amendment) Rules, 1991 is not only prospective, but has been made effective from April 1, 1991. Sub-rule (2) of rule 1 of the said Amendment Rules specifically provides that the same shall be deemed to have come into force from April 1, 1991. In the circumstances, the amendment shall be deemed to have been introduced and been effective with effect from the said date, no matter the amending Rules were themselves published in the year 1992. If that be so, the application made by the petitioner could not have been granted since the Rules as on the date of the making of the said application did not envisage the registration of a degree holder in economics as a sales tax practitioner. The legislative intent of making the rules retrospective in their operation so as to cover even cases where the applications were pending as on the date the amendment was brought in is therefore manifest. The pending applications had therefore to be dealt with in the light of the changed legal position under the amended rule 56. 4. Reference may also he made to proviso to rule 56(2) according to which persons who were enrolled as sales tax practitioners immediately prior to the commencement of Karnataka Sales Tax (Amendment) Rules, 1991 would continue to remain eligible to practice as sales tax practitioners notwithstanding the amendment unless their names are removed from the list referred to in sub-rule (5). This implies that as per the amended provision only such persons as had been enrolled immediately prior to the commencement of the amended Rules of 1991 could continue to practice no matter they did not possess the qualifications prescribed by the amended provisions of rule 56. This implies that as per the amended provision only such persons as had been enrolled immediately prior to the commencement of the amended Rules of 1991 could continue to practice no matter they did not possess the qualifications prescribed by the amended provisions of rule 56. Stated conversely, it would mean that no person could after the commencement of the amendment Rules of 1991 be either registered or allowed to practice as sales tax practitioner if he did not have the qualifications prescribed by rule 56 in its amended form. The intention to give retrospectively to the amended provisions of rule 56 is therefore much too apparent from the amending rules to be capable of being ignored. The respondents were, in these circumstances, perfectly justified in rejecting the applications made by the petitioner. There is no error of law or jurisdiction in the orders passed by them to warrant interference. This writ petition accordingly fails and is hereby dismissed, but in the circumstances, without any orders as to costs. Writ petition dismissed.