Retrospective tax amendment upheld where a clarificatory deeming fiction cured defects and made assessment provisions workable.

The Karnataka HC upheld the retrospective insertion of section 26(4) and its Explanation into the Karnataka Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1957, holding that a retrospective amendment is valid when it cures a statutory defect and does not create a fresh substantive liability. The Explanation was treated as clarificatory and consistent with the charging and machinery provisions, so the dissolved firm or association could be assessed for pre-dissolution agricultural income received later. The Court also rejected the article 14 challenge, finding the classification reasonable and non-discriminatory. The amendment and Explanation were therefore held constitutionally valid.

---

---

Issues: Whether the retrospective amendment introducing section 26(4) and its Explanation into the Karnataka Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1957, was ultra vires the Constitution, and whether the Explanation travelled beyond the scope of the main provision by fastening liability on the dissolved firm or association.

Analysis: The retrospective operation was upheld as valid legislative correction of defects earlier noticed by the Court. Retrospectivity, by itself, was held to be within legislative competence and not mala fide, unconstitutional, or a creation of a fresh substantive liability. The Explanation was construed as clarificatory and consistent with section 26(4), because the charging section, the definition of "person", and the machinery provision together contemplated assessment of the dissolved firm or association in respect of pre-dissolution agricultural income received later. The Court held that the Explanation did not alter the substantive levy, but only supplied the necessary deeming fiction to make the main enactment workable. The challenge under article 14 also failed because the classification inherent in the amendment was held to be reasonable and not discriminatory.

Conclusion: The retrospective amendment and the Explanation were held valid, and the challenge to their constitutional validity failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A retrospective tax amendment that merely cures a statutory defect and supplies a clarificatory deeming fiction to make the charging and machinery provisions workable is valid, provided it does not create an arbitrary levy or offend article 14.

---