Retrospective tax challenge fails where a provision only completes assessment for an interregnum under an operative concessional regime.

Section 17B of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 was upheld because it merely completed levy and assessment for the interregnum when the Kerala Finance Bill, 2004 had operative effect on concessional sales, and did not impose a fresh general tax burden or enhance the rate retrospectively. The provision was confined to dealers who had purchased specified goods at the concessional rate and resold them before the Finance Act, 2004 took full effect. The challenge to unconstitutional retrospectivity therefore failed, and the court also noted that the appellant's own case proceeded on the basis of the concessional rate under the Finance Bill.

---

---

Issues: Whether section 17B of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 was unconstitutional or impermissibly retrospective for dealers who purchased goods during the period when the Kerala Finance Bill, 2004 was operational under the provisional collection regime.

Analysis: The provision was intended to complete assessments for a defined period in respect of dealers who had purchased specified goods at the concessional rates contemplated by the Finance Bill, 2004 and then resold them before the Finance Act, 2004 finally took effect. It did not enhance the tax rate generally or impose a fresh burden on dealers who had already paid tax at the full rate under the First Schedule. The provision only ensured levy and collection for the interregnum during which the Finance Bill had been given operative effect, and therefore did not amount to unconstitutional retrospectivity. The challenge also lacked factual foundation, since the appellant had itself proceeded on the basis of the concessional rate under the Finance Bill.

Conclusion: Section 17B was upheld as valid and not retrospectively offensive, and the challenge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A tax provision confined to completing assessment for a specified interregnum, and only to dealers who availed the operative concessional rate under a finance bill, is not retrospective in the unconstitutional sense if it does not impose an additional general tax burden.

---