https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784394 The dominant issue was whether the State notification and the amendment inserting "other than facilities provided in intensive care unit (ICU)" into the charging provision under the State luxury tax law were merely clarificatory/declaratory and thus retrospective. The HC held that an amendment that clarifies or elucidates an existing charging provision relates back to the original provision, and that the change expressly declared that charges collected for ICU facilities were never intended to attract luxury tax, unlike charges for other hospital room facilities. Consequently, the exemption applied retroactively to prior assessment years, and the impugned assessments and demand notices levying luxury tax on ICU charges were quashed and set aside. en-us Wed, 26 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 05 Jan 2026 08:04:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784394 The dominant issue was whether the State notification and the amendment inserting "other than facilities provided in intensive care unit (ICU)" into the charging provision under the State luxury tax law were merely clarificatory/declaratory and thus retrospective. The HC held that an amendment that clarifies or elucidates an existing charging provision relates back to the original provision, and that the change expressly declared that charges collected for ICU facilities were never intended to attract luxury tax, unlike charges for other hospital room facilities. Consequently, the exemption applied retroactively to prior assessment years, and the impugned assessments and demand notices levying luxury tax on ICU charges were quashed and set aside. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 26 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784394