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
Latest Expert Exchange
« VAT (Value Added Tax) »
 Pending VAT comes to haunt companies claiming input tax credit
 One-time settlement of VAT, excise disputes in the works
 Haryana government uploads photos of VAT defaulters
 Filing of online return for 4th quarter of 2017-18 extension of period thereof.
 No Cenvat credit admissible on outward transportation services from factory to buyer’s premises
  Filing of reconciliation return in form 9 for the year 2016-17
 Govt may send notice to 162 companies; ask for VAT returns
 Cenvat Credit Is Not Income Liable To Be Taxed
 Cos wanting to claim VAT refund on employees' foreign stay can get professional help
 Regarding disposal of pending form DVAT 04 & 07 Form Applications
 Disposal of pending Form DVAT 04 & Form DVAT 07 applications: regarding

Bombay HC upholds retro amendment to VAT law
June, 14th 2013

The Bombay high court has upheld the constitutional validity of a retrospective amendment to the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Laws, which restricts the VAT incentives available to eligible industrial units, based on prescribed proportionality formula. With this favourable order on Monday, the state may benefit to the tune of several hundred crores.

The Maharashtra VAT (Levy, Amendment and Validation) Act, 2009, sought to enforce tax benefits under the Package Incentive Scheme based on a prescribed proportionality ratio with retrospective effect from April 1, 2005 (the date when the principal legislation came into force). While the Bombay high court has upheld such retrospective amendment, at the same time it has struck down the retrospective application of penalty, holding it to be harsh and arbitrary.

Sunil Gabhawalla, chartered accountant specializing in indirect tax, says: "This judgment brings an element of finality to a long-drawn dispute. Further, the decision of the Bombay high court that penalty cannot be imposed retrospectively is fair and judicious."

The Maharashtra State government from time to time introduces Package Scheme of Incentives to attract industries to underdeveloped and developing regions. Such incentives are available to fresh units and in cases of substantial expansion by an existing industrial unit.

The Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 (Mah VAT Act), which came into force from April 1, 2005, also provided for such a scheme.

In their petition to the high court, as many as eight companies, including Jindal Poly Films, Bajaj Auto, Mirc Electronics, challenged the constitutional validity of a retrospective amendment to the Mah Vat Act. Through the concept of proportionality, mandated via this amendment, the benefits to an eligible existing unit were proportionally restricted to the turnover attributable to the expansion.

It was petitioned that over the years, the decision to exclude proportionality was reiterated by the legislature. Further, when the Sales Tax Department by way of an administrative decision had sought to impose a norm of proportionality, the same had been struck down by the divisional bench of Bombay high court. As the petitioners had taken the benefit of the exemption available under the Package Scheme of Incentives and passed on the benefit, a retrospective amendment which now sought to collect a tax was unreasonable.

However, the high court, in its exhaustive 41-page order, held that the legislative intent to grant proportionate incentives was clear under the restrictive provisions of section 93(1) of the Mah Vat Act, even prior to the retrospective amendment. Referring to one of the points raised by the petitioners, justices D Y Chandrachud and A A Sayed in their order pointed out that earlier, the divisional bench of the high court had held that the principle of proportionality could not be enforced because of the absence of rules. This lacuna was cured by the amending provisions of Section 93(1), with retrospective effect. By doing so, proportionality has been mandated and a formula for computation of proportionate incentives introduced from the date of the original legislation. Upholding the retrospective amendment, the high court observed, "A validating legislation can be enacted to cure the deficiency and do what was always intended."

However, the judges struck down application of penalty with retrospective effect from April 1, 2005, holding it to be a harsh proposition. "A penalty cannot be imposed merely because it is lawful to do so. The imposition of a penalty for the period prior to the amendment of section 93 with retrospective effect would be arbitrary," they held.

Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2018 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Binarysoft Technologies - Achievements

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