TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 150
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(Annexure-'A'); (ii) quashing the impugned demand notice in Form VI dated 31.03.2021 bearing T. No. 129 for RC No. 581409256issued by the 1st Respondent under the provisions of the Karnataka Tax on Luxuries Act, 1979 (Annexure 'B'); (iii) quashing the impugned Clarification dated 02.07.2015 bearing No. KTL/CR-08/2013-14 issued by the 2nd Respondent under the provisions of the Karnataka Tax on Luxuries Act, 1979 (Annexure 'C'); (iv) declaring that Sections 3-E(1) and 2(1-C) of the Karnataka Tax on Luxuries Act, 1979, are ultra vires Article 246(3) read with Entry 62 of List II in Schedule VII to the Constitution of India, 1950, if the said provisions are construed so as to provide for the levy of tax under the Karnataka Tax on Luxuries Act, 1979, on the charges for facilities provided to patients admitted in Intensive Care Units; (v) declaring that the levy of tax under the provisions of the Karnataka Tax on Luxuries Act, 1979, on the charges for facilities provided to patients admitted in Intensive Care Units is ultra vires Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950; and (vi) pass such other or further o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....evy of tax under the provisions of the Karnataka Tax on Luxuries Act, 1979, on the charges for facilities provided to patients admitted in Intensive Care Units, Neo-Natal Care Units and Coronary/Cardiac Care Units is ultra vires Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950; and (vi) pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, and in the interests of justice and equity." In W.P.No.9507/2021: (i) quashing the impugned reassessment order dated 31.03.2021 passed by the 1st Respondent for RC 532412727under Sections 6(1)(b), 5-A(2-A) and 7of the Karnataka Tax on Luxuries Act, 1979, read with Rule 6(3) of the Karnataka Tax on Luxuries Rules, 1979 (Annexure 'A'); (ii) quashing the impugned demand notice in Form VI dated 31.03.2021 for Regn. Certificate No. 532412727 issued by the 1st Respondent under the provisions of the Karnataka Tax on Luxuries Act, 1979 (Annexure 'B'); (iii) quashing the impugned Clarification dated 02.07.2015 bearing No. KTL/CR-08/2013-14 issued by the 2nd Respondent under the provisions of the Karnataka Tax on Luxuries Act, 1979 (An....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... impugned assessment order dated 28.03.2022 passed by the 1st Respondent for RC No.581409256 under Sections 6(1)(b), 5-A(2-A) and 7-A(2) of the Karnataka Tax on Luxuries Act, 1979, for AY 2013-14 (Annexure 'A-1'); (ii) quashing the impugned demand notice in Form VI dated 28.03.2022 for RC No.581409256 issued by the 1st Respondent under the provisions of the Karnataka Tax on Luxuries Act, 1979 for AY 2013-14 (Annexure 'A-2); (iii) quashing the impugned Clarification dated 02.07.2015 bearing No. KTL/CR-08/2013-14 issued by the 2nd Respondent under the provisions of the Karnataka Tax on Luxuries Act, 1979 (Annexure 'B'); (iv) declaring that Sections 3-E(1) and 2(1-C) of the Karnataka Tax on Luxuries Act, 1979 (Annexures C-1 and C- 2), are ultra vires Article 246(3) read with Entry 62 of List II in Schedule VII to the Constitution of India, 1950, if the said provisions are construed so as to provide for the levy of tax on the charges for facilities provided to patients admitted in Intensive Care Units; (v) declaring that the levy of tax under the provisions of the Karnataka Tax on Luxuries Act, 1979, on the charges for facilities ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessment order dated 28.03.2022 and assessment order and demand notice dated 29.01.2022 rejecting the claim of the petitioners. Aggrieved by the impugned assessment orders and demand notice, the petitioners are before this Court by way of the present petitions. 4. Per contra, learned AGA and learned HCGP, on behalf of the respondents would support the impugned orders and submit that the Notification dated 20.01.2016 as well as the amended provision of Section 3-E of the said Act of 1979 were prospective in nature and application and consequently, there is no merit in the petitions and the same are liable to be dismissed. 5. Before adverting to the rivals submissions, it would be necessary to extract Section 3-E of the said Act, 1979, as it stood prior to amendment by Act 5/2016 with effect from 01.04.2016, which reads as under: "There shall be levied and collected tax at the rate of 8% on the charges collected for luxuries provided in a hospital in a hospital in a room such as accommodation, air- conditioning, telephone, telephone calls, television, radio, music, extra beds and the like, where such charges are more than Rs. 1000/- per day per room." 6. By Act 5/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aid provisions contained in Section 3-E (pre amendment and post amendment) and the aforesaid notification dated 20.01.2016, will clearly indicate that the respondent-State have categorically exempted payment of luxury tax on charges collected by hospitals towards ICU charges from its patients. The only question that arises for consideration in the present petitions is as to whether the said amendment to Section 3- E of the said Act, 1979, exempting payment of luxury tax on ICU charges collected from patients, is retrospective / retroactive or whether it is retrospective / retroactive in nature and application, as contended by the petitioners, or as to whether it is prospective, as contended by the respondent-State. In this context, it is relevant to state that it is trite law that any amendment / legislation, which merely clarifies, elucidates or declares an earlier existing provision would be retrospective as held by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-I, NEW DELHI V. VATIKA TOWNSHIP PRIVATE LIMITED in (2015) 1 SCC 1, wherein it is held as under: "19.1. Dealing with the first question, the Court noted the contention....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n, may physically consists of words printed on papers. However, conceptually it is a great deal more than an ordinary prose. There is a special peculiarity in the mode of verbal communication by a legislation. A legislation is not just a series of statements, such as one finds in a work of fiction/non-fiction or even in a judgment of a court of law. There is a technique required to draft a legislation as well as to understand a legislation. Former technique is known as legislative drafting and latter one is to be found in the various principles of "interpretation of statutes". Vis-à-vis ordinary prose, a legislation differs in its provenance, layout and features as also in the implication as to its meaning that arise by presumptions as to the intent of the maker thereof. 28. Of the various rules guiding how a legislation has to be interpreted, one established rule is that unless a contrary intention appears, a legislation is presumed not to be intended to have a retrospective operation. The idea behind the rule is that a current law should govern current activities. Law passed today cannot apply to the events of the past. If we do something today, we do it keeping i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... India v. Indian Tobacco Assn. [(2005) 7 SCC 396], the doctrine of fairness was held to be relevant factor to construe a statute conferring a benefit, in the context of it to be given a retrospective operation. The same doctrine of fairness, to hold that a statute was retrospective in nature, was applied in Vijay v. State of Maharashtra [(2006) 6 SCC 289] . It was held that where a law is enacted for the benefit of community as a whole, even in the absence of a provision the statute may be held to be retrospective in nature. However, we are (sic not) confronted with any such situation here. 31. In such cases, retrospectivity is attached to benefit the persons in contradistinction to the provision imposing some burden or liability where the presumption attaches towards prospectivity. In the instant case, the proviso added to Section 113 of the Act is not beneficial to the assessee. On the contrary, it is a provision which is onerous to the assessee. Therefore, in a case like this, we have to proceed with the normal rule of presumption against retrospective operation. Thus, the rule against retrospective operation is a fundamental rule of law that no statute shall be constru....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ded. The language 'shall be deemed always to have meant' is declaratory, and is in plain terms retrospective. In the absence of clear words indicating that the amending Act is declaratory, it would not be so construed when the pre-amended provision was clear and unambiguous. An amending Act may be purely clarificatory to clear a meaning of a provision of the principal Act which was already implicit. A clarificatory amendment of this nature will have retrospective effect and, therefore, if the principal Act was existing law which the Constitution came into force, the amending Act also will be part of the existing law." The above summing up is factually based on the judgments of this Court as well as English decisions. 33. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Keshavlal Jethalal Shah v. Mohanlal Bhagwandas [AIR 1968 SC 1336 : (1968) 3 SCR 623], while considering the nature of amendment to Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act as amended by Gujarat Act 18 of 1965, observed as follows : (AIR p. 1339, para 8) "8. ... The amending clause does not seek to explain any pre- existing legislation which was ambiguous or ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... computed according to the law in force at the beginning of the assessment year i.e. the first day of April, any change in law affecting tax liability after that date though made during the currency of the assessment year, unless specifically made retrospective, does not apply to the assessment for that year." 9. As stated supra, any registration / amendment if clarificatory, elucidatory or declaratory would be retrospective / retroactive in nature and application. In this context, it is relevant to state that originally that prior to amendment, charging Section i.e. Section 3-E of the said Act 1979, specifically provided for payment of luxury tax on charges collected for luxuries provided in a hospital in a room including accommodation, air conditioning, telephone, telephone calls, etc., where charges are more than Rs. 1000/- per room. However, pursuant to the Notification dated 20.01.2016 and the amendment to Section 3-E of the said Act of 1979, the said charging provision, which directed levy of luxury tax on charges collected from the hospital towards accommodation, air condition, etc., has been clarified by stating that the charges collected from patients admitted in ICU wo....