Retrospective tax penalty for late return filing does not breach Article 20(1) where it is a fiscal exaction, not criminal punishment.

A retrospective amendment to section 17 of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958, authorising penalty for late filing of returns, was held not to violate Article 20(1). The protection against ex post facto punishment applies to conviction and punishment for criminal offences, not to fiscal penalties imposed under a tax statute. Such penalty was treated as an additional tax or fiscal exaction rather than punishment for an offence in the criminal sense. The amendment was therefore valid, and the penalty under section 17(3) was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the retrospective amendment to section 17 of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958, authorising penalty for late filing of returns, violated Article 20(1) of the Constitution.

Analysis: Article 20(1) prohibits conviction and punishment for an offence except under a law in force when the offence was committed, and its protection is directed against ex post facto criminal law. A penalty imposed under a fiscal enactment for late filing of returns is not punishment for an offence in the criminal sense, but is in substance an additional tax or fiscal exaction. The Court relied on the distinction between criminal offences and fiscal penalties, and on the view that Article 20(1) does not extend to penalties imposed under tax laws merely because they operate retrospectively. The contrary observations referred to by the petitioner were held not to be part of the ratio.

Conclusion: The retrospective amendment did not offend Article 20(1), and the penalty imposed under section 17(3) was valid.

---