https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162278 Retrospective insertion of Explanation II to section 2(17) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, deeming refining of oil to be manufacture from 1 January 1960, was upheld as constitutionally valid. The Court held that Parliament may retrospectively amend a fiscal statute to remove ambiguity, supply an omission, or validate an existing levy, and that this amendment clarified the pre-existing position rather than creating a new tax burden. It also rejected the challenge that the long retrospective period was arbitrary or unreasonable. The constitutional challenge therefore failed and the sales tax authorities' view was sustained. en-us Fri, 28 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 21 Feb 2014 18:31:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162278 Retrospective insertion of Explanation II to section 2(17) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, deeming refining of oil to be manufacture from 1 January 1960, was upheld as constitutionally valid. The Court held that Parliament may retrospectively amend a fiscal statute to remove ambiguity, supply an omission, or validate an existing levy, and that this amendment clarified the pre-existing position rather than creating a new tax burden. It also rejected the challenge that the long retrospective period was arbitrary or unreasonable. The constitutional challenge therefore failed and the sales tax authorities' view was sustained. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 28 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162278