Latest Expert Exchange Queries

GST Demo Service software link:
Username: demouser Password: demopass
Get your inventory and invoicing software GST Ready from Binarysoft
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing | GST - Goods and Services Tax
Popular Search: TDS :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: due date for vat payment :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: form 3cd :: VAT Audit :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: cpt :: empanelment :: VAT RATES :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes
News Headlines »
  How to check income tax refund status
 GST panel to consult MSMEs in October end to further ease tax rigour
  How to check income tax return status
 Been Served a Notice by the Income Tax Department? Here’s How You Can Respond
 Seeks to amend the CGST Rules, 2017 - 45/2017 - Central GST (CGST)
 Government provides clarity on tax rate
 Processing of returns in Form ITR-I under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961
  Filing of Reconciliation return in form 9 for the year 2016-17
  Today is last date for filing GSTR-1 forms for July; govt rules out further extension
 Today is last date for filing GSTR-1 forms for July; govt rules out further extension
 Refund of IGST paid on export of goods under Rule 96 of CGST Rules 2017

Retrospectively unfair
March, 31st 2007
There are 84 clauses in Finance Bill 2007, of which, 73 relate to income-tax and 11 to wealth tax. Nearly 30 per cent of the provisions are to be operative retrospectively

The Finance Bill, 2007 has many proposals that are to be made operative with retrospective effect. There are 84 clauses in the Bill, of which 73 relate to income-tax and 11 to wealth tax. Nearly 30 per cent of the provisions are to be operative retrospectively in certain instances from as early as 1975, 1976, 1994 and 1996. Some instances of retrospective operations are presented in the Table.

What's retrospective legislation

Retrospective legislation implies ex-post-facto law. In simple words, it relates to a situation where some of the provisions are made operative before the law is enacted . In other words, , retrospective law is a law which looks back.

Legal basis

Retrospective legislation have been accepted by courts. Parliament has plenary powers of legislation and, subject to certain constitutional restrictions, can legislate prospectively and retrospectively. However, there can be grounds to oppose them if such laws affect substantive and vested rights. They also need to be viewed on the ground that the Government has to be slow in making such laws and wholesale changes to the income-tax and wealth tax laws retrospectively, as proposed in the Finance Bill, 2007, can be contested on grounds of excessive use of such power without application of mind.

Procedural and substantive law

It is well established by a number of court decisions that a subject cannot claim any right as to procedure, which can be varied according to the exigencies of the administration. However, the same cannot be said to apply to substantive law conferring vested rights, which cannot be taken away by retrospective legislation.

According to the Oxford Law Dictionary (5th edition, 2003), for retrospective/retroactive legislation, there is presumption that statutes are not intended to have retroactive effect.

Misconceived retrospective operation

The legal position in respect of a substantive law is that the legislature does not intend to enact law which operates oppressively and unreasonably. But that is what many provisions in the Finance Bill, 2007 propose to do. An example of this is addition of an Explanation after sub-section (13) of Section 80-IA. When once a decision was taken by the Finance Act, 1999, that tax holiday benefit would be available to a person, who develops or operates or maintains an infrastructure facility (as against the earlier requirement of giving the benefit only to a person who carried out the three activities in an integrated way of development, operation and maintenance) and some persons took the work, say, of development only, may be on works contract basis, they acted perfectly in accordance with the law as it then existed and, hence, it would be most unfair to go back on that law retrospectively from April 1, 2000, and withdraw the benefit.

Earlier decision, even at the cost of some revenue, need to be left undisturbed. Taking resort to retrospective legislation in such a situation and withdrawing the benefit already utilised at the cost of investment (may be heavy) brings down the credibility of the Government, besides making the tax law complicated and proliferating legislation. There are many more such instances in the Bill.

The way out

If the Government feels that the earlier decision(s) was/were incorrectly taken, it can make corrections prospectively as has been done in the case of Section 14A of the I-T Act. In Section 14A, which was earlier made to be operative from April 1, 1962, by the Finance Act, 2001, on taxpayers' protect, a proviso was added by the Finance Act, 2002 with effect from May 11, 2001 the date of coming into operation of Section 14A to the effect that nothing contained in Section 14A shall empower the assessing officer (AO) to reopen past cases or pass any order enhancing the assessment or reducing the refund already granted.

Likewise, it can also be provided that the assessees too cannot claim any rights or benefits in respect of the period prior to the coming into force of the amended law, whose operation can be made prospective.

The correction of existing provisions noticed consequent to Supreme Court decisions indicates inefficiency in enacting a provision initially inasmuch as it failed to depict the correct legislative policy and purpose. That being so, the loss of revenue in the past should be borne by the Revenue and not be passed on to the taxpayers by retrospective amendments. To do so would unfair and unjust.

T. N. Pandey
(The author is a former chairman of the CBDT.)

Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2017 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Binarysoft Technologies - Privacy Policy

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions