https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159298 A retrospective amendment reducing set-off under rule 41D could not operate from 1 July 1982 because subordinate legislation lacked authority for retrospective effect, so the assessee succeeded on that point. Set-off for despatches to the Silvassa branch was denied because registration under the Central Sales Tax Act was a mandatory condition under rule 41D(2)(iii), and non-registration barred relief. Additional tax under section 15-A(1) had to be computed after deducting available set-off under rule 41E, so reassessment was required. The retrospective amendment to rule 41E was upheld as a curative measure and not unconstitutional. Set-off under rule 41E read with rule 44D was to be computed on the purchase price basis, not the sale price, for the relevant inputs. en-us Tue, 22 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 19 Nov 2013 18:48:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159298 A retrospective amendment reducing set-off under rule 41D could not operate from 1 July 1982 because subordinate legislation lacked authority for retrospective effect, so the assessee succeeded on that point. Set-off for despatches to the Silvassa branch was denied because registration under the Central Sales Tax Act was a mandatory condition under rule 41D(2)(iii), and non-registration barred relief. Additional tax under section 15-A(1) had to be computed after deducting available set-off under rule 41E, so reassessment was required. The retrospective amendment to rule 41E was upheld as a curative measure and not unconstitutional. Set-off under rule 41E read with rule 44D was to be computed on the purchase price basis, not the sale price, for the relevant inputs. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 22 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159298