Prospective penal amendments cannot revive past service tax liability against a company officer for earlier conduct.

A prosecution for alleged service tax non-payment and short payment against a company officer was held not maintainable where the complaint concerned past acts and the later insolvency-related amendment had not yet come into force. The Court applied the settled principle that provisions enlarging penal liability operate prospectively unless the legislature clearly indicates otherwise. It also noted that the corporate debtor had gone into liquidation and its assets were sold as a going concern, but treated the timing of the amendment as decisive. The petitioner's request to quash the complaint was therefore accepted in relation to his alleged pre-amendment conduct.

---

---

Issues: Whether the prosecution for service tax offences against the petitioner could continue in view of the subsequent insolvency regime and the later-introduced statutory provisions governing corporate debtor liability.

Analysis: The complaint arose from alleged non-payment and short payment of service tax for earlier assessment years. The record showed that the corporate debtor had undergone liquidation and its assets were sold as a going concern. The Court proceeded on the basis that the criminal prosecution was launched before the later insolvency-related provision came into existence, and applied the settled principle that amendments creating or enlarging penal liability are prospective unless the legislature clearly provides otherwise. The Court also noted that the petitioner sought quashing of the complaint as against him in his capacity as an officer of the company.

Conclusion: The subsequent statutory amendment could not be applied to the petitioner's alleged past acts, and the prosecution against him was not maintainable.

---