https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393304 Retrospective curtailment of input tax credit under the Jharkhand VAT Act was invalid where the substituted proviso first created a forfeiture of accrued credit, because a fiscal amendment imposing a new burden cannot defeat vested benefits retrospectively. The challenge to clause (xviii) in Section 18(8) failed, as denial of credit for goods consumed or burnt up in manufacturing was treated as a reasonable classification. Rule 26(11A) could not operate retrospectively since Section 94 did not authorise retrospective delegated legislation. For the period before the valid rule took effect, the amended proviso was unworkable for want of a lawful computation mechanism, and forfeiture orders for that period were quashed. en-us Wed, 29 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 12 Mar 2020 10:31:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393304 Retrospective curtailment of input tax credit under the Jharkhand VAT Act was invalid where the substituted proviso first created a forfeiture of accrued credit, because a fiscal amendment imposing a new burden cannot defeat vested benefits retrospectively. The challenge to clause (xviii) in Section 18(8) failed, as denial of credit for goods consumed or burnt up in manufacturing was treated as a reasonable classification. Rule 26(11A) could not operate retrospectively since Section 94 did not authorise retrospective delegated legislation. For the period before the valid rule took effect, the amended proviso was unworkable for want of a lawful computation mechanism, and forfeiture orders for that period were quashed. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 29 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393304