Retrospective sales tax enhancement upheld where no arbitrariness was shown and no special justification was required.

Retrospective fiscal legislation falls within legislative competence, and no general requirement exists to justify the retrospective operation in the Statement of Objects and Reasons. A retrospective tax measure may still be invalid if it is shown to be arbitrary or unreasonable, but the challenge here did not establish that defect. The one per cent enhancement was treated as unlike the exceptional oppressive levy relied on in the cited precedent, and the later Supreme Court authority confirmed that no separate explanation is needed merely because an amendment operates retrospectively. The writ petition was therefore rejected and the retrospective sales tax enhancement upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the enhanced retrospective levy of sales tax under the amending legislation was invalid for want of justification in the Statement of Objects and Reasons.

Analysis: The power to enact fiscal legislation prospectively or retrospectively is within the legislative competence, and there is no general legal requirement that the legislature justify the necessity of a retrospective levy in the Statement of Objects and Reasons. A retrospective tax measure may still be struck down if, on its facts, it is shown to be arbitrary or unreasonable, but the challenge in the present case did not disclose such invalidity. The increase of one per cent was not comparable to the exceptional and oppressive retrospective enhancement considered in the cited precedent, and the later Supreme Court decision relied upon the settled position that no explanation is required merely because the amendment operates retrospectively.

Conclusion: The retrospective enhancement of sales tax was upheld and the challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was rejected because the impugned retrospective tax enhancement was within legislative power and was not shown to be arbitrary or unreasonable.

Ratio Decidendi: A retrospective fiscal enactment is valid unless it is shown to be beyond legislative competence or so arbitrary or unreasonable as to be unconstitutional; no separate justification in the Statement of Objects and Reasons is required merely because the levy operates retrospectively.

---