Retrospective sales tax validation upheld forfeiture of excess collections; Article 20 did not bar civil tax penalties.

Retrospective amendment of section 46(2) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 validated the prohibition on excess tax collection by registered dealers from its original date, so amounts collected before 15 July 1962 became liable to forfeiture under section 37(1). Article 20 of the Constitution did not bar the forfeiture because a sales tax penalty imposed by tax authorities was treated as a civil liability, not a criminal conviction or punishment. Section 27 of Maharashtra Act 21 of 1962 was confined to criminal consequences and could not override the retrospective validating amendment. The challenge to departmental forfeiture therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the retrospective insertion of the words extending section 46(2) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 to registered dealers validated forfeiture of excess tax collections made before 15 July 1962, and whether section 27 of Maharashtra Act 21 of 1962 or article 20 of the Constitution of India barred such forfeiture.

Analysis: The retrospective amendment by section 18 of Maharashtra Act 21 of 1962 expressly deemed the prohibition against excess collection of tax by a registered dealer to have always been part of section 46(2). Once that amendment operated retrospectively, the excess amounts collected before 15 July 1962 became liable to forfeiture under section 37(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. The protection in article 20 of the Constitution of India was held inapplicable because a penalty imposed by sales tax authorities is a civil liability, though penal in character, and not a criminal conviction or punishment within the meaning of that article. Section 27 of Maharashtra Act 21 of 1962 was construed as intended only to meet criminal consequences, not departmental penalties, and it could not be read so broadly as to nullify the retrospective amendment itself.

Conclusion: The retrospective forfeiture of excess tax collections was valid, and the challenge based on article 20 and section 27 failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A retrospectively validating amendment to a sales tax provision may sustain departmental forfeiture of excess tax collections, and article 20 of the Constitution of India does not protect against such civil penalties imposed by tax authorities.

---