Retrospective fiscal amendment upheld where deeming refining of oil as manufacture was treated as clarification, not a new levy.

Retrospective insertion of Explanation II to section 2(17) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, deeming refining of oil to be manufacture from 1 January 1960, was upheld as constitutionally valid. The Court held that Parliament may retrospectively amend a fiscal statute to remove ambiguity, supply an omission, or validate an existing levy, and that this amendment clarified the pre-existing position rather than creating a new tax burden. It also rejected the challenge that the long retrospective period was arbitrary or unreasonable. The constitutional challenge therefore failed and the sales tax authorities' view was sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the retrospective insertion of Explanation II to section 2(17) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, deeming refining of oil to be manufacture from 1 January 1960, was constitutionally valid and could be treated as a clarificatory amendment.

Analysis: The amendment was examined in the setting of prior tribunal rulings and the competing submissions on whether refining oil had always been treated as manufacture. The Court held that the legislative power to amend a fiscal statute retrospectively is well settled, especially where the amendment is intended to remove ambiguity, supply an omission, or validate the existing levy. On the text and scheme of the unamended definition of manufacture, and in light of later authority recognising processing of oil as manufacture, the Court found that the amendment did not impose a genuinely new levy for the first time but clarified the position and neutralised the effect of the tribunal's contrary view. The retrospective operation was also held not to be arbitrary or unreasonable merely because it extended over a long period.

Conclusion: The retrospective amendment was upheld as valid and legal, and the challenge to its constitutionality failed.

Final Conclusion: The petition challenging the retrospective amendment to the definition of manufacture was rejected, and the sales tax authorities' view was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A fiscal amendment that clarifies or validates an existing levy, and does not in substance create a new tax burden, may validly operate retrospectively if the legislative intent is clear and the retrospective effect is not shown to be arbitrary or unreasonable.

---