https://www.taxtmi.com/article/detailed?id=1049 The article criticizes the High Court's acceptance of a retrospective amendment that validates taxation of renting of immovable property by treating post enactment changes as corrections of drafting defects. It argues the original statutory language clearly limited tax to services in relation to renting, that public commentary before enactment confirmed that narrower scope, and that retroactive regularization unfairly imposes tax liabilities, undermines legal certainty and taxpayer reliance. The author urges that government drafters, not taxpayers, should bear the consequences of drafting errors and recommends using prior published analyses to challenge retrospective amendments. en-us Mon, 06 Dec 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 06 Dec 2010 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/article/detailed?id=1049 The article criticizes the High Court's acceptance of a retrospective amendment that validates taxation of renting of immovable property by treating post enactment changes as corrections of drafting defects. It argues the original statutory language clearly limited tax to services in relation to renting, that public commentary before enactment confirmed that narrower scope, and that retroactive regularization unfairly imposes tax liabilities, undermines legal certainty and taxpayer reliance. The author urges that government drafters, not taxpayers, should bear the consequences of drafting errors and recommends using prior published analyses to challenge retrospective amendments. Articles Service Tax Mon, 06 Dec 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/article/detailed?id=1049