The dominant issue was whether the Notification dated 20.01.2016...

The dominant issue was whether the Notification dated 20.01.2016 and the amendment inserting the words "other than facilities provided in intensive care unit (ICU)" in the luxury-tax charging provision were merely clarificatory/declaratory, thereby operating retrospectively. The court held that where an amendment elucidates an existing levy, it relates back to the original provision and cannot be treated as prospective. Since the pre-amendment levy covered charges for hospital rooms and allied facilities, the amendment clarified that charges collected from patients admitted in ICU were never intended to be taxed, warranting retroactive exemption for prior assessment years. Consequently, the assessment order and demand notices levying luxury tax on ICU-related charges were quashed and the petition was allowed. - HC

---