2012 (10) TMI 961

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Gowda For the Respondents : K.M. Shivayogiswamy, Additional Government Advocate, ORDER:- H.G. RAMESH J.-In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the validity of the amendment to sub-section (4) of section 4 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 ("the KVAT Act", for short) by Karnataka Act No. 6 of 2007 on the sole ground that it ought to have been given retrospective effe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....or the petitioner submitted that the impugned amendment ought to have been given retrospective effect from October 2, 2006, i.e., the date of coming into force of the Drugs (Prices Control) Amendment Order, 2006, as the definition of "maximum retail price" in the aforesaid Drugs Control Amendment Order states that it shall be inclusive of all taxes. He further submitted that not giving retrospecti....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... ought to have been given retrospective effect from October 2, 2006, i.e., the date of commencement of the Drugs Control Amendment Order referred to above is devoid of merit. The two judgments of the Supreme Court relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner have no relevance to the contention urged. 6. It is for the Legislature to decide whether a law should be prospective or retrospective. T....