https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157237 A retrospective amendment to subordinate legislation cannot sustain a tax demand that conflicts with a binding judicial determination unless it contains an express validating provision. The assessee had been recognised as entitled to pay entertainments tax at the reduced rate from the date seating capacity was reduced, and that earlier decision fixed the liability for the relevant period. Because the later retrospective amendment to rule 27(10) did not validate recovery at the higher rate or authorise disregard of the final judgment, the demand notice based on the earlier rate was held illegal and invalid and was quashed. en-us Fri, 15 Nov 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 03 Oct 2013 12:51:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157237 A retrospective amendment to subordinate legislation cannot sustain a tax demand that conflicts with a binding judicial determination unless it contains an express validating provision. The assessee had been recognised as entitled to pay entertainments tax at the reduced rate from the date seating capacity was reduced, and that earlier decision fixed the liability for the relevant period. Because the later retrospective amendment to rule 27(10) did not validate recovery at the higher rate or authorise disregard of the final judgment, the demand notice based on the earlier rate was held illegal and invalid and was quashed. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 15 Nov 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157237