<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2010 (9) TMI 995 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165566</link>
    <description>Even where a statute authorises retrospective rule-making by notification, that power must be exercised on reasonable and non-arbitrary grounds. An unexplained retrospective enhancement of tax liability, not shown to be clarificatory, validating, or necessary to give effect to existing legislative intent, violates Article 14. The retrospective operation of the tax notification was therefore invalid and could not apply to the period before its issuance.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 14 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 24 Sep 2014 14:35:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=361048" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (9) TMI 995 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165566</link>
      <description>Even where a statute authorises retrospective rule-making by notification, that power must be exercised on reasonable and non-arbitrary grounds. An unexplained retrospective enhancement of tax liability, not shown to be clarificatory, validating, or necessary to give effect to existing legislative intent, violates Article 14. The retrospective operation of the tax notification was therefore invalid and could not apply to the period before its issuance.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165566</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>