https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155493 Section 43(11)(i) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act could not validly require dealers to close accounts on 31 March 1987 and file returns for a truncated period, because that would impose a retrospective burden without express legislative authority. The amended definition of "year" in section 2(1)(x) was treated as a machinery provision within the State's taxing power under entry 54 of List II, as it supported uniform assessment and tax administration. The challenges under article 19(1)(g), article 19(6), and article 25 failed because the uniform closing date was viewed as a regulatory measure for assessment and not an unreasonable trade restraint or interference with religion. en-us Wed, 26 Aug 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 04 Sep 2013 17:18:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155493 Section 43(11)(i) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act could not validly require dealers to close accounts on 31 March 1987 and file returns for a truncated period, because that would impose a retrospective burden without express legislative authority. The amended definition of "year" in section 2(1)(x) was treated as a machinery provision within the State's taxing power under entry 54 of List II, as it supported uniform assessment and tax administration. The challenges under article 19(1)(g), article 19(6), and article 25 failed because the uniform closing date was viewed as a regulatory measure for assessment and not an unreasonable trade restraint or interference with religion. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 26 Aug 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155493