Retrospective VAT amendment and works-contract rate upheld, but levy on declared goods was limited by CST ceiling.

Retrospective amendment to Kerala VAT law was upheld where the Governor's assent cured the absence of prior recommendation, and article 255 was treated as a validating provision read with articles 199, 200 and 207. A uniform 12.5% rate for works contracts was also sustained because works contract goods may form a separate taxable class from ordinary sales. The short retrospective period from 1 July 2006 to 24 October 2006 did not amount to an unreasonable restriction under article 19(1)(g). However, the levy on declared goods could not exceed the ceiling in section 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act read with article 286, so the higher rate was confined to 4% for the earlier period.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether section 6(1)(f) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003, as amended with retrospective effect, was invalid for want of prior Bill recommendation and for alleged violation of constitutional requirements governing money bills and governor's recommendation; (ii) whether prescribing a uniform rate of 12.5% for works contracts was bad in law; (iii) whether the retrospective operation from 1 July 2006 to 24 October 2006 violated article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India by imposing unreasonable hardship; and (iv) whether the levy at 12.5% on declared goods was unconstitutional in view of articles 286 and 366(29A)(b) of the Constitution of India and sections 14 and 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.

Issue (i): Whether section 6(1)(f) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003, as amended with retrospective effect, was invalid for want of prior Bill recommendation and for alleged violation of constitutional requirements governing money bills and governor's recommendation.

Analysis: The amendment was assailed on the ground that there was no prior proposal in the original Bill and therefore the constitutional requirement for recommendation was not satisfied. The provisions of articles 207, 199, 200 and 255 were examined together. Article 255 was treated as a curative provision, under which assent subsequently granted by the Governor cures the initial absence of prior recommendation where constitutionally required. The amendment had in fact received the Governor's assent. The Court therefore held that the absence of prior recommendation did not invalidate the enactment.

Conclusion: The challenge on this ground failed.

Issue (ii): Whether prescribing a uniform rate of 12.5% for works contracts was bad in law.

Analysis: The Court relied on the settled principle that goods involved in execution of a works contract may form a separate class for taxation purposes. A uniform rate may validly be prescribed for such class even if the individual goods, when sold separately, attract different rates. The distinction between sale of goods simpliciter and deemed sale in works contract was held to justify separate fiscal treatment.

Conclusion: The prescription of a uniform rate for works contracts was held to be valid.

Issue (iii): Whether the retrospective operation from 1 July 2006 to 24 October 2006 violated article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India by imposing unreasonable hardship.

Analysis: The power to legislate retrospectively in fiscal matters was recognised as well settled. Retrospective taxation does not per se infringe article 19(1)(g), though in exceptional cases excessive retroactivity may be tested for unreasonableness. Here the retrospective period was only about three months. The Court found no material to show that the limited retrospectivity caused undue hardship or imposed an unreasonable restriction on trade, especially in the absence of proof that the burden could not otherwise be passed on under the contractual terms.

Conclusion: The retrospective operation was not unconstitutional on the ground of unreasonable restriction or hardship.

Issue (iv): Whether the levy at 12.5% on declared goods was unconstitutional in view of articles 286 and 366(29A)(b) of the Constitution of India and sections 14 and 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.

Analysis: Declared goods are subject to the restrictions in section 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, read with article 286 of the Constitution of India. A State levy on declared goods in excess of the ceiling prescribed by section 15 cannot stand. The later proviso inserted in 2008 cured the position prospectively, but for the earlier period the provision had to be read down. The applicable rate for declared goods could not exceed the statutory ceiling under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.

Conclusion: The levy at 12.5% on declared goods was not sustainable for the prior period and the tax on declared goods was confined to 4%.

Final Conclusion: The amendment to section 6(1)(f) was upheld in substance, including the validity of retrospective taxation and the uniform works-contract rate, but the levy on declared goods was restricted to the ceiling under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The proceedings were therefore only partly successful for the assessees.

Ratio Decidendi: A fiscal amendment may operate retrospectively and prescribe a uniform tax rate for works contracts, but it cannot impose a rate on declared goods that exceeds the restriction contained in section 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 read with article 286 of the Constitution of India.

---