TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (9) TMI 995
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....009 and not from the date of its issuance. 2. The case of the petitioners is that they are running brick kilns and have opted for the system of payment in lump sum tax based on the production capacity as per the provisions of the Haryana Value Added Tax Rules, 2003. The petitioners paid tax at rates applicable for the period prior to the impugned notification. By way of impugned notification, they have been required to pay higher rates even for the period prior to issuance of the said notification. 3. In response to the notice issued, reply has been filed by the respondents justifying retrospective levy at higher rates on the basis of section 60(1) of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 to the effect that the Rules could be retrospe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hem prospective or retrospective effect." 9. Even though power of Legislature under article 245 of the Constitution is plenary which also includes power to make law with retrospective effect and even subordinate legislation can be allowed to be made retrospectively, subject to certain limitations, exercise of such power has to be consistent with article 14 and if arbitrary, the same can be struck down. When exercise of retrospective power of legislation can be held to be arbitrary, has necessarily to be judged on the merits of the amendment in a given fact situation. 10. In State of Gujarat v. Raman Lal Keshav Lal Soni AIR 1984 SC 161, it was observed: ". . . The Legislature is undoubtedly competent to legislate with retrospective ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e amendment in the light of the facts and circumstances under which such amendment is made. In considering the question as to whether the legislative power to amend a provision with retrospective operation has been reasonably exercised or not, it becomes relevant to enquire as to how the retrospective effect of the amendment operates." 11. The above view was reiterated in Virender Singh Hooda v. State of Haryana AIR 2005 SC 137. After referring to earlier judgments, it was observed: "66. In Lohia Machines Ltd. v. Union of India [1985] 152 ITR 308 (SC); [1985] 2 SCC 197, on the aspect of reasonableness and arbitrariness of amending law, it was observed that the power and competence of Parliament to amend any statutory provision with re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nable. Retrospective legislation may be justified if a provision is clarificatory or provision is for validating an earlier levy which may have been struck down or for any such purpose which may be permissible. In absence thereof, mere fact that there is legislative competence to legislate retrospectively cannot by itself be enough to justify retrospective levy. 13. In Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. [1958] 9 STC 267 (SC); [1958] AIR SC 452 relied upon on behalf of the State, the position was different. The Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1947 came into force with effect from July 1, 1947 but on account of certain omission, the charging section was not brought into force and to cure the said omission, Ordinance III of 1948 was promulgated from a retrosp....