Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether Explanation IV to section 2(1)(e) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, which included banks within the definition of "dealer", operated retrospectively so as to cover auction sales of pledged ornaments made before 1 August 1996.
Analysis: Explanation IV was inserted for the first time by the amending Act and introduced an in-built deeming fiction extending the scope of "dealer" to banks, financial institutions, insurance corporations and similar bodies. The amendment created a liability for the first time and therefore did not merely clarify an existing ambiguity. The Legislature itself provided that the amendment would come into force from 1 August 1996, which reinforced that it was prospective. As the disputed auction sale had taken place in 1987, the amended provision could not be applied to that completed past transaction.
Conclusion: Explanation IV was held to be prospective and not retrospective. It did not apply to the pre-1 August 1996 auction sale, and the assessee-bank was not liable under the amended definition for that transaction.
Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the amendment enlarging the definition of "dealer" could operate only from its stated commencement date and not on past sales.
Ratio Decidendi: A statutory explanation that introduces a new deeming fiction and enlarges the scope of liability is prospective when the legislative text and commencement date indicate future operation only.