Retrospective validating amendment upheld for proportionate incentives, but retrospective penalty liability struck down as arbitrary.

Retrospective validation of section 93 of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act was upheld because the amendment cured the earlier defect by supplying the missing mechanism for proportionate incentive computation under package schemes, rather than creating a fresh levy. The validating legislation was treated as removing the basis of invalidity and was therefore constitutionally permissible. By contrast, the retrospective penalty under section 93(2) was struck down because penal liability cannot be imposed retrospectively in a harsh or arbitrary manner. The penalty provision was confined to prospective operation, while the validating amendment otherwise remained effective in favour of Revenue.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the retrospective substitution of section 93 of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 by the Maharashtra Value Added Tax (Levy, Amendment and Validation) Act, 2009, validating proportionate incentives under package schemes, was constitutionally valid. (ii) Whether the retrospective imposition of penalty under section 93(2) could be sustained.

Issue (i): Whether the retrospective substitution of section 93 of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 by the Maharashtra Value Added Tax (Levy, Amendment and Validation) Act, 2009, validating proportionate incentives under package schemes, was constitutionally valid.

Analysis: The legislative scheme under section 41BB of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 and the original section 93(1) of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 already disclosed an intention to grant incentives only on a proportionate basis. The earlier difficulty identified in the judgment concerning the absence of rules and the inability to enforce proportionality through an administrative circular was cured by the amending and validating legislation, which supplied the missing mechanism and formula for computation. A validating enactment is permissible where it removes the basis of invalidity and does not impose a wholly new levy. The retrospective operation was therefore treated as a cure of the defect rather than the creation of an impermissible fresh burden.

Conclusion: The retrospective validation and substitution of section 93(1), section 93(1A) and section 93(1B) were upheld and are in favour of Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether the retrospective imposition of penalty under section 93(2) could be sustained.

Analysis: Penalty is a penal or quasi-penal exaction and cannot be justified merely because the legislature has power to enact it. Although liability to interest on wrongly retained benefits was upheld, the retrospective reach of the penalty provision was considered harsh and arbitrary. On that basis, the Court drew a distinction between recovery of tax-related consequences and penal liability for the past period.

Conclusion: The retrospective operation of the penalty under section 93(2) was struck down, and it was held to operate only prospectively.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the validating amendment substantially failed, but the retrospective penalty element was severed and confined to future operation.

Ratio Decidendi: A validating amendment is constitutionally permissible if it removes the defect that made the earlier provision ineffective and does not impose a wholly new levy, but retrospective penal liability may be invalid if it is arbitrary.

---