https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297165 A statute creating a new liability for higher interest on delayed payments was treated as non-retrospective in the absence of clear legislative intent, so the controlling date was the supply order or concluded transaction rather than the later payment date. On that reasoning, pre-commencement contracts did not attract interest merely because payment was delayed after the Act came into force. The discussion also notes that dismissal of an earlier appeal did not make the Full Bench view binding on retrospective application, because the appellate decision did not approve that reasoning. The resulting decree was set aside and the interest claim failed on transactions concluded before commencement. en-us Tue, 20 Nov 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 21 Aug 2021 10:51:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297165 A statute creating a new liability for higher interest on delayed payments was treated as non-retrospective in the absence of clear legislative intent, so the controlling date was the supply order or concluded transaction rather than the later payment date. On that reasoning, pre-commencement contracts did not attract interest merely because payment was delayed after the Act came into force. The discussion also notes that dismissal of an earlier appeal did not make the Full Bench view binding on retrospective application, because the appellate decision did not approve that reasoning. The resulting decree was set aside and the interest claim failed on transactions concluded before commencement. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 20 Nov 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297165