https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102649 Clause (b) of the amended proviso to section 9(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 was treated as a substantive amendment because it imposed a new tax liability on unregistered dealers and shifted taxing jurisdiction to a different State. The Court noted that retrospectivity must be expressed in clear legislative language, and the validation provision relating to penalties and connected matters under section 9(2) did not extend retrospective effect to the substantive change in section 9(1). The prior position, under which an unregistered dealer was not taxable under the proviso, therefore continued until 7 September 1976, and the amendment operated only prospectively. en-us Tue, 12 Jan 1988 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 11 Sep 2013 10:45:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102649 Clause (b) of the amended proviso to section 9(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 was treated as a substantive amendment because it imposed a new tax liability on unregistered dealers and shifted taxing jurisdiction to a different State. The Court noted that retrospectivity must be expressed in clear legislative language, and the validation provision relating to penalties and connected matters under section 9(2) did not extend retrospective effect to the substantive change in section 9(1). The prior position, under which an unregistered dealer was not taxable under the proviso, therefore continued until 7 September 1976, and the amendment operated only prospectively. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 12 Jan 1988 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102649