https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276858 A penal amendment to Section 69-A of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, as applied in Maharashtra, was treated as prospective because the statute did not clearly make the new 90-day intimation requirement and penalty retrospective. Pre-amendment alterations in a registered firm could not attract penalty merely because notice was given later, since no such liability existed when the changes were completed. The Registrar therefore lacked authority to impose penalty for non-intimation of pre-amendment changes, and the impugned orders were liable to be quashed. Post-amendment changes remained subject to lawful consideration after hearing the parties. en-us Tue, 26 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 19 Nov 2018 16:24:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276858 A penal amendment to Section 69-A of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, as applied in Maharashtra, was treated as prospective because the statute did not clearly make the new 90-day intimation requirement and penalty retrospective. Pre-amendment alterations in a registered firm could not attract penalty merely because notice was given later, since no such liability existed when the changes were completed. The Registrar therefore lacked authority to impose penalty for non-intimation of pre-amendment changes, and the impugned orders were liable to be quashed. Post-amendment changes remained subject to lawful consideration after hearing the parties. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 26 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276858