https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252208 The explanation inserted to Section 65(19) of the Finance Act, 1994 was treated as creating a substantive legal fiction akin to a charging provision, so it could not apply retrospectively to tax the lottery business for the disputed period absent clear legislative intent. Following the Supreme Court in Martin Lottery Agencies Ltd., the Tribunal held that an explanation imposing new liability cannot be read as retrospective merely by form. The appeal therefore succeeded on the basis that the impugned explanation was not retrospective. en-us Wed, 04 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 14 Oct 2014 13:25:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252208 The explanation inserted to Section 65(19) of the Finance Act, 1994 was treated as creating a substantive legal fiction akin to a charging provision, so it could not apply retrospectively to tax the lottery business for the disputed period absent clear legislative intent. Following the Supreme Court in Martin Lottery Agencies Ltd., the Tribunal held that an explanation imposing new liability cannot be read as retrospective merely by form. The appeal therefore succeeded on the basis that the impugned explanation was not retrospective. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 04 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252208