AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 504
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Respondent appeared before us. 2. In course of hearing, it was transpired that DGAP conducted the investigation and submitted its 1st Report on 17.09.2021, wherein, it was alleged that Respondent has profiteered an amount or Rs. 28,74,577/- including GST on base profiteered amount. 3. This matter was taken up by erstwhile NAA and as per the order dated 05.08.2022 in I.O No. 11/2022, it held that the matter should be remanded back to the DGAP to carry out further investigation in terms of Rule 133(4) with a direction that the investigation should be completed and a Report should be sent to the Authority within 3 months. It was also directed by the erstwhile NAA that if the Respondent does not provide relevant and complete information f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to effectively decide this issue which essentially a question of law involving interpretation of Statute, the Amending Rule (Fourth) brought by the Government of India, in Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) through the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) through Notification No. 31/2019 on 28.06.2019 has to be considered. It aimed at amending various provisions of CGST Rules by exercising powers conferred upon the Government of India under Section 164 of the CGST Act. Subrule (1) of the Rule (1) of the said notification provided that rules may be called the Central Goods & Services Tax (Fourth Amendment) Rules, 2019. Sub-rule (2) of rule (1) is provided as follows; "(2) save as otherwise provided in these ru....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ouncil, hereby appoints the 1st day of April 2020, as the date from which the provisions of the said rule, shall come into force." 13. Dealing with a similar question the Constitution Bench of Supreme Court of India in C.I.T. (C-1) New Delhi Vs. Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd, (2015) SCC-1, considered whether the amendment to the provisions of Section 113 of the Income Tax Act, inserted by the Finance Act, 2002 is to operate prospectively or it is a clarificatory and curative in nature, and, therefore, has retrospective operation. While considering this issue the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that a plain reading of the aforesaid statutory provision, it is clear that though the provision of surcharge under the Finance Act has been in ex....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ctive operation unless otherwise provided in specific terms or by very strong and necessary implication. 16. The only other course to treat it as a curative and clarificatory piece of legislation, whereby the legislating body, in this case the Government of India as it is a piece of delegated legislation, had clearly intended it to be to have a retrospective application or that it was necessary make such amendments to clarify the existing legislation. The obvious basis of the principle against retrospectivity is a principles of fairness, which must be the basis of every legal rule. Thus legislation which modified accrued rights or which impose obligation or impose new duties or attach a new disability have to be treated as prospect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tatute itself sometimes is a good indicator of the retrospectivity provision. 20. In this particular case, on a reference to the Notification No. 31/2019-Central Tax; G.S.R.457(E).- it is seen that the Government of India in exercise of the powers conferred by section 164 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, made the rules therein to "further" amend the Central Goods & Services Tax Rules. We lay emphasis on the word "further". We also take note that grammatically and semantically, the word "further" does not imply the past. It usually means "in addition" or "to advance". Hence, we are unable to agree to the submissions made by the Representatives of the DGAP that this Amending provision is Clarificatory and Curative having re....