ORDER Sanjay Yadav :- Aggrieved of the correspondence dated February 8, 2002 and order dated March 28, 2002, the petitioner, a registered dealer under the Madhya Pradesh Vanijyik Kar Adhiniyam, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as, "the Adhiniyam of 1994") has filed this petition under article 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking direction to respondent No. 1 to grant benefit of the Madhya Pradesh Bakaya Rashi Saral Samadhan Yojana, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as, "the Scheme of 2002"). By order dated March 28, 2002, the respondents have declined to entertain the application preferred by the petitioner for benefit under the said scheme on the ground that the same is not permissible in cases where the benefit of instalments has been granted. The facts briefly are that, a post-survey assessment was completed ex parte vide order dated December 31, 1997 for the assessment period August 16, 1991 to March 31, 1995 and a demand of Rs. 2,26,195 thereof was raised. The petitioner preferred a revision against the said assessment order and the revisional authority vide order dated March 6, 1998 set aside the ex parte order with a direction of reassessment. The said direction resulted in fresh assessment order dated December 23, 2000 whereon a demand of Rs. 1,86,731 was raised. This order was again questioned in a revision filed on December 30, 2000. During pendency of said revision, the petitioner on November 7, 2001 applied for liquidating the outstanding demand of Rs. 1,31,630 vide instalments. The Additional Commissioner, Commercial Tax, allowed the said application on November 12, 2001 and fixed the instalments of Rs. 10,000 per month starting from November 30, 2001. That on January 5, 2002, the State Government vide Notification No. A-7-15-2002-CT-5/98 announced a scheme for liquidating the outstanding demands known as Madhya Pradesh Bakaya Rashi Saral Samadhan Yojana, 2002. The last date of submission of applications under the said scheme was January 31, 2002. The scheme was made effective with regard to the amount of tax and penalty/interest under the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958, Madhya Pradesh Vanijyik Kar Adhiniyam, 1994, Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and Madhya Pradesh Sthaniya Kshetra Me Mal Ke Pravesh Par Kar Adhiniyam, 1976, which was outstanding for payment on April 1, 2001. The facility granted under said scheme was available for the amount of arrears related to any year ending up to March 31, 1997. The facility granted under said scheme was available for the amount of arrears related to any year ending up to March 31, 1997. The petitioner vide his application dated January 24, 2002 applied for settlement of arrears in form No. 1 under the said scheme by depositing sum of Rs. 74,693, after adjusting the tax, on January 14, 2002. During pendency of said application, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax vide his letter dated February 8, 2002 directed that a policy decision has been taken not to accept the "instalments granted cases" under the scheme. The competent authority, i.e., Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax, taking cue from the aforesaid direction dated February 8, 2002 informed and rejected the application filed by the petitioner for settlement under the scheme vide letter dated March 28, 2002. Being aggrieved whereof the petitioner has filed the present petition. During pendency of present petition, the petitioner has been proceeded against under sections 22(9)(d) and 22(4B) of the Adhiniyam of 1994, i.e., he has been subjected to cancellation of registration certificate as well as imposing of penalty for non-payment of dues. It is these action of the respondents, which the petitioner also calls in question in the present petition. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, the Scheme of 2002 was duly notified in the gazette on January 5, 2002 and did not have any stipulation that the matters wherein the instalment facility has been granted will not be covered by the scheme. It is contended that for facilitating the implementation of Scheme of 2002 the State Government framed rules known as the Madhya Pradesh Bakaya Rashi Saral Samadhan Yojana, 2002 whereunder rule 2(1)(h) defines "amount of arrear" and the said definition nowhere categorises that the assessee, enjoying the benefit of payment of instalments, will not be covered. It is further contended that since the petitioner in pursuance of the said notification and the rules framed thereunder has filed an application on January 24, 2002, the respondents were under obligation to have considered the said application and a subsequent clarification issued by way of internal circular issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Tax on February 8, 2002 will not bar the case of the petitioner from consideration as the same has no retrospective effect. The petitioner further places reliance on the guidelines issued by the Department, which is brought on record as annexure P12. The petitioner further places reliance on the guidelines issued by the Department, which is brought on record as annexure P12. It is contended that it was clearly stipulated in paragraph 12 that even the cases wherein amount of arrear is due on April 1, 2001 and a facility of instalment has been granted, shall be covered by the Scheme. The precise issue raised and duly answered is in the following terms : It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the aforesaid clarification was very much applicable when the petitioner filed an application for settlement under the scheme on January 24, 2002 and the same ought not to have been rejected on the basis of subsequent instructions issued by the Commissioner, Commercial Tax on February 8, 2002. The respondents on their turn seeks dismissal of the petition on the ground that the petitioner as per the policy decision arrived at and circulated vide letter dated February 8, 2002 was not entitled for being considered under the scheme in question. Pertinent it is to note that, the respondents have not disputed the fact that on January 5, 2002 when the scheme was brought into existence, the petitioner in pursuance thereof has filed an application on January 24, 2002 after depositing a sum of Rs. 74,693 after adjusting the taxes on January 14, 2002. The respondents also do not dispute the clarification, which was issued by the Commissioner, Commercial Tax as per annexure P12. It is also not disputed by the respondents that the internal circular issued on February 8, 2002 was not published in gazette and was merely an internal correspondence addressed by the Commissioner, Commercial Tax, to the Deputy Commissioner, Assistant Commissioner and Commercial Tax Inspectors. The application filed by the petitioner for extension of benefit of Scheme of 2002 was admittedly rejected on the basis of subsequent correspondence dated February 8, 2002 and the policy as mooted vide said letter was in digression to clarification, which was given on earlier occasion as contained in annexure P12. The contention of the petitioner that the instructions contained in said letter ought not to have been given a retrospective effect has a substantial force because the power exercised by the Commissioner, Income-tax was a delegated power, which was not made effective from the retrospective date. In Bakul Cashew Co. The contention of the petitioner that the instructions contained in said letter ought not to have been given a retrospective effect has a substantial force because the power exercised by the Commissioner, Income-tax was a delegated power, which was not made effective from the retrospective date. In Bakul Cashew Co. v. Sales Tax Officer, Quilon [1986] 62 STC 122 (SC); AIR 1987 SC 2239 it was observed by their Lordships that "... authority which has the power to make subordinate legislation cannot make it with retrospective effect unless it is so authorised by the Legislature which has conferred that power on it. ..." In Income-tax Officer v. M. C. Ponnoose [1970] 75 ITR 174 (SC), at page 177; AIR 1970 SC 385 , at page 387 their Lordships were pleased to observe : "... Where any rule or regulation is made by any person or authority to whom such powers have been delegated by the Legislature it may or may not be possible to make the same so as to give retrospective operation. It will depend on the language employed in the statutory provision which may in express terms or by necessary implication empower the authority concerned to make a rule or regulation with retrospective effect. But where no such language is to be found it has been held by the courts that the person or authority exercising subordinate legislative functions cannot make a rule, regulation or bye-law which can operate with retrospective effect. ..." In the case at hand, admittedly prior to the circular dated February 8, 2002 the Scheme of 2002 do not categorise that the assessee, availing of the benefit of instalments, will be excluded from consideration under the Scheme of 2002. Further clarification circulated vide annexure P2 does include the class of assessee, who are being given the benefit of instalments and otherwise covered by the Scheme and it was only by letter dated February 8, 2002 that the Commissioner, Commercial Tax, has instructed its subordinate staff not to accept the applications and not to issue form No. 2 under the Scheme of 2002 to such class of persons. In the considered opinion of this court, since the petitioner had filed an application on January 24, 2002 and had deposited the amount, as sought for under the Scheme of 2002, i.e., much before the issuance of letter dated February 8, 2002, it was incumbent upon the respondents to have accepted the same and have issued the form No. 2. In view of above, the petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to accept the application preferred by the petitioner in pursuance of Scheme of 2002 and decide the same on its own merit. Consequences would ensue. The petition is allowed to the extent above. However, in the peculiar facts of the present case, no costs.