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 the errata issued in G.O. Ms. No. 304 could be applied retrospectively so as to fasten liability at the enhanced rate during the intervening period, and whether the rate applicable to the sale of jewellery remained at 2 per cent rather than 4 per cent in that interregnum.
Analysis: A taxing enactment is ordinarily prospective, and retrospectivity is not to be presumed unless clearly authorised. The liability to pay tax arises under the statute and is not dependent on collection from customers, but the Government cannot, by a later notification or erratum, retrospectively impose a higher burden for a period already covered by the earlier notification structure. In case of doubt about the applicable rate, the construction favourable to the assessee is to be preferred. The record also indicated that the later notification was not in effective circulation during the relevant period in a manner that would justify a contrary rate being applied.
Conclusion: The errata was held to operate only prospectively, and the petitioners were not liable to be assessed at the enhanced rate for the intervening period. The writ petitions succeeded in favour of the assessees.
Ratio Decidendi: A taxing notification or erratum cannot be given retrospective effect to create or enhance liability for a past period unless such operation is clearly authorised, and any ambiguity in the applicable rate in a taxing context must be resolved in favour of the assessee.