https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165565 A retrospective amendment excluding damaged wheat from the definition of "animal feed" under the Haryana VAT regime was treated as introducing taxability for the first time rather than merely clarifying the law. Because damaged wheat had earlier been understood to fall within the exempt entry, the backward effect altered the tax position and created liability retrospectively. The Court held that retrospective fiscal legislation must be justified and non-arbitrary, and that the same restraint applies to delegated legislation. As no contemporaneous dispute required clarification and no reason was shown for retrospective exclusion, the amendment's retrospective operation was found arbitrary and beyond the rule-making authority's competence. en-us Tue, 22 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 16 Sep 2014 08:58:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165565 A retrospective amendment excluding damaged wheat from the definition of "animal feed" under the Haryana VAT regime was treated as introducing taxability for the first time rather than merely clarifying the law. Because damaged wheat had earlier been understood to fall within the exempt entry, the backward effect altered the tax position and created liability retrospectively. The Court held that retrospective fiscal legislation must be justified and non-arbitrary, and that the same restraint applies to delegated legislation. As no contemporaneous dispute required clarification and no reason was shown for retrospective exclusion, the amendment's retrospective operation was found arbitrary and beyond the rule-making authority's competence. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 22 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165565