https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167847 The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, a registered dealer under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, in a case challenging the legality and validity of a retrospective notification issued by the State Government. The court held that the retrospective amendment, which imposed new tax liabilities on the petitioner for wheat purchases, was unreasonable and unjustified. The court emphasized that retrospective legislation must have valid justification, which was lacking in this case. As a result, the court allowed the writ petition, declaring that the impugned notification should not operate retrospectively. en-us Thu, 05 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 09 Jan 2015 15:25:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167847 The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, a registered dealer under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, in a case challenging the legality and validity of a retrospective notification issued by the State Government. The court held that the retrospective amendment, which imposed new tax liabilities on the petitioner for wheat purchases, was unreasonable and unjustified. The court emphasized that retrospective legislation must have valid justification, which was lacking in this case. As a result, the court allowed the writ petition, declaring that the impugned notification should not operate retrospectively. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 05 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167847