Refund-based tax exemption upheld, but retrospective compliance rule struck down for making performance impossible and arbitrary.

The amended exemption scheme under the U.P. VAT Act, 2008, which replaced direct exemption with a refund-based mechanism requiring deposit of net tax with the return, was upheld as within legislative competence and not unconstitutional. Rule 70(5) of the U.P. VAT Rules, 2008, however, was invalidated because it imposed retrospective compliance dates for a past period after those dates had already expired, making performance impossible and rendering the rule arbitrary and unreasonable under Article 14. Consequential notices and penalty orders founded on that invalid rule were quashed, and only prospective compliance could be enforced within the time granted by the Court.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether Section 42(4) and Section 42(5) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008, which changed the exemption mechanism to a refund-based system, were unconstitutional; (ii) whether Rule 70(5) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Rules, 2008, prescribing retrospective time limits for deposit of net tax for January 2008 to June 2008, was valid; and (iii) whether the impugned notices and penalty orders issued on the basis of the amended rule could stand.

Issue (i): whether Section 42(4) and Section 42(5) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008, which changed the exemption mechanism to a refund-based system, were unconstitutional.

Analysis: The amended statutory scheme requiring deposit of net tax along with the return, followed by refund, was held to be within legislative competence and not inherently illegal, arbitrary, or violative of any constitutional provision. The Court found no basis to invalidate the substantive amendment merely because it altered the method of availing the exemption benefit.

Conclusion: Section 42(4) and Section 42(5) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 were upheld and were not struck down.

Issue (ii): whether Rule 70(5) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Rules, 2008, prescribing retrospective time limits for deposit of net tax for January 2008 to June 2008, was valid.

Analysis: The rule was framed only on 30.01.2009 but required compliance within dates that had already expired in 2008. The Court held that the law cannot compel performance of an impossible act. A rule that makes compliance impracticable, irrational, and retrospectively impossible was treated as arbitrary and unreasonable, and therefore contrary to Article 14.

Conclusion: Rule 70(5) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Rules, 2008 was struck down as invalid, irrational, unreasonable, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (iii): whether the impugned notices and penalty orders issued on the basis of the amended rule could stand.

Analysis: Once the retrospective compliance mechanism in Rule 70(5) was held invalid, the consequential notices and penalty orders based on alleged non-compliance with that invalid mechanism could not be sustained. The allied consequences under the remaining sub-rules, insofar as they depended on the invalid sub-rule, also became inoperative for the relevant period.

Conclusion: The impugned notices and orders were quashed.

Final Conclusion: The substantive amendment introducing refund-based exemption was sustained, but the retrospective rule prescribing impossible compliance dates was invalidated, resulting in quashing of the consequential demands and a limited opportunity to comply prospectively within the time granted by the Court.

Ratio Decidendi: A delegated rule that prescribes compliance for a past period after the prescribed time has already expired, thereby making performance impossible, is arbitrary and unreasonable and violates Article 14.

---