TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court Upholds Retrospective Amendment Validity in VAT Act: Clarifies Reassessment Period Extension</h1> <h3>M/s Amrit Banaspati Company Ltd. Versus State of Punjab and Others</h3> M/s Amrit Banaspati Company Ltd. Versus State of Punjab and Others - [2016] 88 VST 372 (P&H) Issues Involved:1. Constitutional validity of the amendment to Section 29 of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005.2. Whether the amendments to Section 29(4) and the newly added sub-section (10-A) are retrospective or prospective.3. Whether the amendments cure or remove previous defects and validate defective actions.4. Whether the amendments reverse or overrule previous judgments and are therefore unconstitutional.5. Whether Explanation (2) is contrary to the rules of natural justice and is constitutionally invalid.6. Whether Explanation (2) is relevant to the main section.7. Whether the amendment is harsh, unfair, arbitrary, and excessively retrospective, violating Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution.8. Whether the proviso to the amended Section 29(4) is contrary to the main section.9. Whether the amendment extends the period of reassessment even where the original period for assessment has expired.10. Whether Explanation (1) makes the old proviso redundant and is therefore invalid and irrational.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Constitutional Validity of the Amendment to Section 29 of the PVAT Act:The petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of the amendment to Section 29 of the PVAT Act by the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2013. They sought a writ of certiorari to quash a notice dated 23.09.2014. The court confined itself to the challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 29 as amended.2. Retrospective or Prospective Nature of Amendments:The court held that the amendments to Section 29(4) and sub-section (10-A) are retrospective. The proviso and Explanation (1) to the amended section establish that the limitation period of six years applies retrospectively to cases where the period had not yet expired. The court clarified that the date of the enactment of the Amendment Act (15.11.2013) does not control its retrospective operation.3. Amendments Cure or Remove Previous Defects:The court noted that the amendments were introduced to undo the effect of previous judgments, particularly the judgment in A.B. Sugars Ltd. v. The State of Punjab. The amendments aimed to remove the defects pointed out in the previous judgments and validate the actions taken under the PVAT Act.4. Amendments Reverse or Overrule Previous Judgments:The court held that the amendments do not merely reverse previous judgments but fundamentally alter the conditions on which the judgments were based. By providing its own meaning and interpretation of the law, the legislature has removed the basis on which the judgments were delivered.5. Explanation (2) and Rules of Natural Justice:The court acknowledged that Explanation (2) clarifies that prior to the amendment, the Commissioner was not required to issue notice before extending the limitation period. Even if Explanation (2) were held unconstitutional, the retrospective nature of the opening part of Section 29(4) would still allow the extended period for assessment.6. Relevance of Explanation (2) to the Main Section:The court found that Explanation (2) is relevant to the main section as it clarifies the legislative intent and removes the basis of previous judgments. The explanation was necessary to validate actions taken under the unamended section.7. Harshness, Unfairness, and Arbitrariness of the Amendment:The court rejected the contention that the amendment is excessively and unreasonably retrospective. It noted that if the books are not available due to statutory destruction before the amendment, the assessee can bring this to the notice of the Assessing Authority, who must consider it.8. Proviso to the Amended Section 29(4):The court held that the proviso to the amended Section 29(4) is not contrary to the main section. The proviso grants a further period for making the assessment for the year 2006-07, which is consistent with the main section's intent.9. Extension of the Period of Reassessment:The court upheld the amendment, allowing the extension of the period for assessment even where the original period had expired. The court referred to the judgment in Additional Commissioner (Legal) v. Jyoti Traders, which supported the retrospective extension of the assessment period.10. Redundancy of the Old Proviso:The court acknowledged that the amendment rendered the old proviso redundant. The purpose of the amendment was to obviate the consequences of the old proviso, which required notice and extension within the original assessment period.Conclusion:The petition was dismissed. The court clarified that all contentions on merits are kept open for the petitioners in connected writ petitions, and they are granted four weeks to adopt appropriate proceedings. Coercive steps shall not be taken until 21.09.2015.
TaxTMI 