https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40031 Retrospective validation of sales tax penalties was treated as permissible where the Central sales tax amendment expressly adopted State penalty machinery and cured the earlier defect in the unamended Act. Article 20(1) was held inapplicable because the penalties were civil liabilities under tax law, not criminal punishment for an offence. The retrospective operation was also not treated as an unreasonable restriction under articles 19(1)(f) and 19(1)(g) when enacted as a validating fiscal measure within legislative competence. Section 48 of the Haryana sales tax law was upheld because the penalty discretion was guided by statutory conditions, minimum and maximum limits, hearing requirements, and appellate review. en-us Fri, 06 May 1983 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 01 Aug 2014 09:44:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40031 Retrospective validation of sales tax penalties was treated as permissible where the Central sales tax amendment expressly adopted State penalty machinery and cured the earlier defect in the unamended Act. Article 20(1) was held inapplicable because the penalties were civil liabilities under tax law, not criminal punishment for an offence. The retrospective operation was also not treated as an unreasonable restriction under articles 19(1)(f) and 19(1)(g) when enacted as a validating fiscal measure within legislative competence. Section 48 of the Haryana sales tax law was upheld because the penalty discretion was guided by statutory conditions, minimum and maximum limits, hearing requirements, and appellate review. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 06 May 1983 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40031