Retrospective input tax credit amendment treated as curative, extending tax relief to pre-amendment transactions.

The amended input tax credit provision extending relief to transactions covered by section 8(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act was held to operate retrospectively. The court treated the change as a substitution made to remove an anomaly in the earlier framework and to place section 8(2) transactions on the same footing as section 8(1) transactions. Because the amendment was curative rather than a new policy choice, confining it to future transactions would create an unjustified distinction. On that basis, the benefit of input tax credit extended to pre-amendment transactions, and the assessment and notice proceedings were quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the amended provision extending input tax credit to transactions covered by section 8(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act applies retrospectively to transactions that occurred before the amendment.

Analysis: The amendment was treated as a substitution intended to remove an anomaly in the earlier framework. The reasoning accepted that the legislative change was not a new policy choice confined only to future transactions, but a correction meant to place transactions under section 8(2) on the same footing as those under section 8(1). Since the amendment merely set right the anomaly, restricting its operation to the date of substitution would create an unjustified distinction between pre-amendment and post-amendment transactions.

Conclusion: The amended provision applies retrospectively, and the benefit of input tax credit extends to prior transactions as well.

Final Conclusion: The assessment and notice proceedings were quashed by applying the earlier binding view that the amendment was curative and retrospective in operation.

Ratio Decidendi: A substitution that corrects an anomaly and extends a beneficial tax credit scheme is retrospective in operation unless the legislature clearly indicates a prospective restriction.

---