https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162194 Retrospective validation of section 9(2B) of the Central Sales Tax Act and clause 120 of the Finance Act, 2000 was treated as curing the earlier absence of a substantive charging basis for interest, and the constitutional challenge under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) failed. The deeming fiction was held capable of sustaining levy and collection proceedings despite limitation objections under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994, though pending rectification matters were left for decision by the authorities. However, interest cannot be charged on interest, and no interest can be levied on amounts already deposited and lying with the department; those factual questions were left for case-by-case examination. en-us Thu, 13 Dec 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 20 Feb 2014 16:34:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162194 Retrospective validation of section 9(2B) of the Central Sales Tax Act and clause 120 of the Finance Act, 2000 was treated as curing the earlier absence of a substantive charging basis for interest, and the constitutional challenge under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) failed. The deeming fiction was held capable of sustaining levy and collection proceedings despite limitation objections under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994, though pending rectification matters were left for decision by the authorities. However, interest cannot be charged on interest, and no interest can be levied on amounts already deposited and lying with the department; those factual questions were left for case-by-case examination. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 13 Dec 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162194