Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

25. It is also settled that unless there are words in the statute sufficient to show the intention of the legislature to affect existing rights it is deemed to be prospective only. If the decision maker is proceeding experimentally and seeks to change the pattern of tax structure, the policy should be and usually is prospective and if the decision maker is merely adjusting the legal rules to confirm with the established principles of levy of tax or if it is in the nature of 'curative statute', the policy should be and usually is retro active or retrospective. The reason for this thinking appears to be, a retro active legislation creates a new and unanticipated rule and retro active application of the rule would undermine the statutory policy and produce hardships of inequitable results. The thinking of the Courts seems to be 'curative statutes' normally retroactive and a fresh statutes are prospective. Thus where a statute simply codifies what the legislature beliefs the Courts have misinterpreted, it should be presumptive be applied retrospective, since prospective interpretation of such statute is unpragmatic. A statute can be retrospective, but not if it results in manifest injustice by unsettling normal practice without sufficient policy justification.

33. The first question that requires to be answered is whether the impugned legislation is in the nature of clarification or validating an earlier enactment which had been declared by a competent Court as invalid. To answer this precise issue, several correspondence which are available in the Government files and produced before this Court by learned Government Advocate requires to be seen and noted. The Minister for sugar by his letter dated 11.9.1997 requests the Hon'ble Chief Minister and Minister for Finance to bring in a legislation to facilitate the department to levy tax on imported sugar at 15% for the reasons mentioned in his letter. To collect the information regarding the quantity of sugar imported, the names of the persons who were permitted to import sugar, the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes addresses a letter dated 3.10.1997 to the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs and in that categorically observes that the Government of India has permitted the import of sugar in large quantity and in that connection, it is proposed to examine the feasibility of levying sales tax on imported sugar under the provisions of Karnataka Sales Tax Act, since the imported sugar is not subjected to additional excise duty and by yet another letter dated 9th January 1998, addressed to Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Government of Maharashtra, requests him to give him information with reference to a news item dated 12.12.1997, wherein the Government of Maharashtra was considering imposition of sales tax on imported sugar, so that the State of Karnataka may also be advised suitably. Further when the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes took the view that the imported sugar could be taxed under Section 5(3)(a) read with SI. No. 18A of part 'S' of second schedule, the Principal Secretary to the Government did not agree with his thinking and infact by his correspondence dated 30.6.2000 informs him that it is not permissible to levy sales tax on imported sugar. These aspects I have noticed only to suggest that at no point of time either the Government or the department had any doubt in their mind that the imported sugar would fall under Entry 31-B of the fifth schedule but were trying to bring the said commodity within the net of sales tax by making appropriate amendment in their Act. Therefore, the impugned legislation cannot be either construed as a validating enactment or curative statute or in the nature of clarification as there was no enactment or law prior to 1.4.2001, which was invalidated by any Court or imperfect or defective on account of mistakes committed by the legislature which the legislature intends to cure by the impugned legislation.