https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334733 The amended exemption scheme under the U.P. VAT Act, 2008, which replaced direct exemption with a refund-based mechanism requiring deposit of net tax with the return, was upheld as within legislative competence and not unconstitutional. Rule 70(5) of the U.P. VAT Rules, 2008, however, was invalidated because it imposed retrospective compliance dates for a past period after those dates had already expired, making performance impossible and rendering the rule arbitrary and unreasonable under Article 14. Consequential notices and penalty orders founded on that invalid rule were quashed, and only prospective compliance could be enforced within the time granted by the Court. en-us Wed, 10 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 17 Mar 2018 10:52:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334733 The amended exemption scheme under the U.P. VAT Act, 2008, which replaced direct exemption with a refund-based mechanism requiring deposit of net tax with the return, was upheld as within legislative competence and not unconstitutional. Rule 70(5) of the U.P. VAT Rules, 2008, however, was invalidated because it imposed retrospective compliance dates for a past period after those dates had already expired, making performance impossible and rendering the rule arbitrary and unreasonable under Article 14. Consequential notices and penalty orders founded on that invalid rule were quashed, and only prospective compliance could be enforced within the time granted by the Court. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 10 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334733