2009 (10) TMI 516 - SC - VAT and Sales Tax

Whether sub-section (2B) of section 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, inserted on May 12, 2000 by the Finance Act of 2000 is retrospective? Whether section 120 of the Finance Act, 2000 which was a validating Act was invalid inasmuch as it purports to validate a provision which had never existed in the statute book? Held that - Appeal dismissed. clause (d) of sub-section (2) of section 120 which, inter alia, states that any proceeding, act or thing which could have been validly taken but not taken may, after commencement, be taken, continued or done. Clause (d), gives a complete answer to the contention advanced by the assessee on retrospectivity. Section 120 of the Finance Act, 2000 makes sub-section (2B) effective right from the very first date of commencement of the 1956 Act, i.e., January 5, 1957. In conclusion, that in none of these cases, the assessee has challenged the constitutional validity of sub-section (2B) inserted vide Finance Act, 2000 with retrospective effect. In the circumstances, we are not required to express any opinion on the constitutional validity of the said sub-section particularly, in the context of retrospectivity.

Summary

Issues:
1. Retrospective application of sub-section (2B) of section 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.
2. Validity of section 120 of the Finance Act, 2000 as a validating Act.

Analysis:
1. Retrospective Application of Sub-section (2B):
The primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether sub-section (2B) of section 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, inserted by the Finance Act of 2000, operated retrospectively. The Court examined the insertion of sub-section (2B) on May 12, 2000, which introduced the provision for interest on delayed tax payments. The Court considered the retrospective effect of this provision, particularly in cases related to assessment years before May 12, 2000. The Court emphasized that sub-section (2B) was made effective from the commencement of the 1956 Act, i.e., January 5, 1957, through the provisions of section 120 of the Finance Act, 2000. It was noted that the interest for delayed payment was treated as "tax due," serving a compensatory purpose to recover lost revenue during the period between the due date and actual payment of tax.

2. Validity of Section 120 of the Finance Act, 2000:
The second issue involved the validity of section 120 of the Finance Act, 2000, which acted as a validating provision for the provisions of section 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Section 120 validated the levy of interest for delayed payment retrospectively, deeming it to have always been in effect since the commencement of the 1956 Act. The Court highlighted clause (d) of sub-section (2) of section 120, which allowed for actions that could have been taken but were not taken earlier to be carried out after the commencement of the section. The Court found no infirmity in the judgment of the Allahabad High Court and dismissed all civil appeals, clarifying that the constitutional validity of sub-section (2B) was not challenged by the assessee in these cases.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the retrospective application of sub-section (2B) of section 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and validated its operation through section 120 of the Finance Act, 2000. The Court emphasized the compensatory nature of the interest for delayed payment and dismissed the civil appeals without costs, as the constitutional validity of the provision was not challenged by the parties involved.