Court dismisses writ petition on exemption notification amendment, deems it remedial, not clarificatory.

The court dismissed the writ petition, ruling that the amendment to the exemption notification is remedial and not clarificatory, with prospective effect from 17.02.2014. The court refrained from deciding if the petitioner's services constitute "health care services," deferring this determination to the competent authorities.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the writ petition.
2. Whether the amendment to the exemption notification is clarificatory and should be given retrospective effect.
3. Determination of whether the services provided by the petitioner fall within the ambit of "health care services."

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Writ Petition:
The respondents argued that the writ petition is not maintainable because it involves the determination of the rate of duty, which falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, the court held that the issue in the writ petition is whether the amendment is clarificatory and should be given retrospective effect. Therefore, the writ petition is maintainable as it does not involve the determination of the rate of duty.

2. Whether the Amendment to the Exemption Notification is Clarificatory and Should be Given Retrospective Effect:
The petitioner argued that the amendment to the exemption notification by inserting Entry No.2A should be considered clarificatory and given retrospective effect from 01.07.2012. The court examined whether the amendment is declaratory/clarificatory or remedial. It was held that usually, an amendment takes effect from the date of its enactment unless expressly stated otherwise. The court referred to several Supreme Court decisions to support this principle. The court concluded that the amendment is remedial in nature and can only have a prospective effect from 17.02.2014. The court noted that if the legislature intended retrospective effect, it would have explicitly mentioned it. Therefore, the amendment cannot be given retrospective effect.

3. Determination of Whether the Services Provided by the Petitioner Fall Within the Ambit of "Health Care Services":
The court clarified that it would not render any finding on whether the petitioner's activities fall within the ambit of "health care services." This determination is to be made by the authorities based on scrutiny of documents and thorough investigation. The court emphasized that the authorities are at liberty to decide this aspect in accordance with the law.

Conclusion:
The writ petition was dismissed, and the court held that the amendment to the exemption notification is remedial and not clarificatory, thus having only a prospective effect from 17.02.2014. The court did not make any determination on whether the petitioner's services fall within "health care services," leaving this to be decided by the appropriate authorities.

---