9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 961X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... H.G. RAMESH J.- In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the validity of the amendment to sub-section (4) of section 4 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 ( the KVAT Act , for short) by Karnataka Act No. 6 of 2007 on the sole ground that it ought to have been given retrospective effect from October 2, 2006. The amendment Act came into force prospectively with effect from April ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... effect from October 2, 2006, i.e., the date of coming into force of the Drugs (Prices Control) Amendment Order, 2006, as the definition of maximum retail price in the aforesaid Drugs Control Amendment Order states that it shall be inclusive of all taxes. He further submitted that not giving retrospective effect to the amendment from October 2, 2006 has rendered it arbitrary. In support of his su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment of the Drugs Control Amendment Order referred to above is devoid of merit. The two judgments of the Supreme Court relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner have no relevance to the contention urged. 6. It is for the Legislature to decide whether a law should be prospective or retrospective. The date of commencement of a plenary legislation cannot be interfered with unless it offends an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of India [1997] 104 STC 134 (SC) referred to above, the Constitution does not preclude the Legislature from evolving an alternate, simplified and hassle-free method of assessment of tax, making it optional for the assessee. By the impugned amendment, the alternate method of taxation is made more advantageous to the dealer than it was earlier inasmuch as now he can pay tax on the maximum retail ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
