https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332900 The article examines whether a retrospective explanation inserted into the Madhya Pradesh VAT Act could require apportionment of input tax rebate where manufacture produced both Schedule I and Schedule II goods. It states that the rebate under the existing provision remained available for taxable raw material used in Schedule II goods, and that an explanation cannot enlarge the main enactment or withdraw a statutory benefit without amending the substantive charging or rebate provision. On that reasoning, the retrospective apportionment mechanism was held unsustainable and applicable only prospectively, leaving the earlier full input tax rebate intact. en-us Fri, 12 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 28 Mar 2017 14:43:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332900 The article examines whether a retrospective explanation inserted into the Madhya Pradesh VAT Act could require apportionment of input tax rebate where manufacture produced both Schedule I and Schedule II goods. It states that the rebate under the existing provision remained available for taxable raw material used in Schedule II goods, and that an explanation cannot enlarge the main enactment or withdraw a statutory benefit without amending the substantive charging or rebate provision. On that reasoning, the retrospective apportionment mechanism was held unsustainable and applicable only prospectively, leaving the earlier full input tax rebate intact. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 12 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332900