https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164221 Retrospective amendment of the proviso to rule 3(2)(c) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2005, requiring the tax invoice or bill of sale to show the discount amount, was held unconstitutional when applied to completed sales. The court accepted that the dealer had granted discounts through post-sale credit notes under the earlier statutory scheme, and held that retrospective rule-making cannot impose an unreasonable, oppressive or unworkable burden on concluded transactions or disturb existing contractual arrangements. The amendment, as applied to April and May 2006, was found to create an additional tax burden and violate Articles 14 and 19(1)(g); the reassessment order and demand notice were quashed. en-us Fri, 26 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 15 Oct 2014 09:47:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164221 Retrospective amendment of the proviso to rule 3(2)(c) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2005, requiring the tax invoice or bill of sale to show the discount amount, was held unconstitutional when applied to completed sales. The court accepted that the dealer had granted discounts through post-sale credit notes under the earlier statutory scheme, and held that retrospective rule-making cannot impose an unreasonable, oppressive or unworkable burden on concluded transactions or disturb existing contractual arrangements. The amendment, as applied to April and May 2006, was found to create an additional tax burden and violate Articles 14 and 19(1)(g); the reassessment order and demand notice were quashed. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 26 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164221