( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. ( 2 ) THE controversy in the present case is in a short compass. The petitioners are partnership firms, which deal with non-ferrous metal scraps of various kinds. The liability under Section 3-A of the U. P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, on the sales was 4 per cent in view of the notification dated september 7, 1981 (annexure 1 to the writ petition ). Thereafter by a subsequent Notification dated October 1, 1983 there were two categories of goods--for the first, i. e. , all kinds of minerals the rate was 4 per cent and for all kinds of metal scraps it was 2 per cent. By another notification dated June 30, 1990 the first category was continued at the rate of 4 per cent, but there was no mention about the rate of tax of the second category. By corrigendum dated October 23, 1990 (annexure 7 to the writ petition) it was provided that the rate of tax on metal scrap will be 4 per cent. ( 3 ) THE argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the period from July 1, 1990 to october 23, 1990, they had to deposit tax at the rate of 2 per cent. On the other hand the argument of the learned Standing Counsel is that the corrigendum dated October 23, 1990 was issued because there was a mistake in the notification dated June 30, 1990. Hence, he argued that there may be presumption that the petitioners had to pay tax at the rate of 4 per cent. We cannot accept the argument of learned Standing Counsel. The proviso to Section 25 of the U. P. Trade tax Act : states "provided that no notification having the effect of increasing the liability to tax of a dealer shall be issued with retrospective effect under this section. " Even apart from this proviso, the general legal principle is that ordinarily a delegated legislation cannot be made with retrospective unless the statute permits. A notification fixing the rate of tax is a piece of delegated legislation and hence it cannot be with retrospective effect unless there is a clear provision in the statute in this connection. ( 4 ) IN view of the above this petition is allowed. A notification fixing the rate of tax is a piece of delegated legislation and hence it cannot be with retrospective effect unless there is a clear provision in the statute in this connection. ( 4 ) IN view of the above this petition is allowed. We direct that the petitioner shall be charged at the rate of 2 per cent and not 4 per cent from July 1, 1990. Corrigendum dated October 23, 1990 will be treated prospective and not retrospective. The assessment order be modified accordingly. .