Page 22 of 139
C/SCA/13134/2009 CAV JUDGMENT
substantive amendment which takes away a vested right of the
Petitioner. It is arbitrary, unreasonable ... nature and does
not relate to a levy or make a substantive amendment and
therefore, there was no question of it being unreasonable
learned counsel was, that
whilst amendment to procedure had generally retrospective effect, an
amendment to a provision vesting a substantive right was generally
prospective ... appeal was
before the High Court, prior to the amendment under consideration.
Consequent upon the amendment of Section 15Z (with effect from 29.10.2002),
the right
contention of the learned
-7-
counsel for the petitioners that the
impugned amendment is violative for its
retrospective operation in order to
overcome the decision ... have
already been concluded. In other words, in
this type of substantive amendment,
retrospective operation can be given only
if it is for the benefit
learned
counsel was, that whilst amendment to procedure had generally retrospective effect,
an amendment to a provision vesting a substantive right was generally prospective ... appeal was before the High Court,
prior to the amendment under consideration. Consequent upon the amendment of
Section 15Z (with effect from 29.10.2002), the right
Amendment) Act, 2005
since it was brought into force with retrospective effect. It is contended that
this amendment was challenged on both a substantive basis ... have already been concluded. In
other words, in this type of substantive amendment, retrospective
operation can be given only if it is for the benefit
quashed the amendment only to the extent that the operation of the said section could be given effect from the date of amendment ... have already been concluded. In other words, in this type of substantive amendment, retrospective operation can be given only if it is for the benefit
unacceptable on the face
of it. It is clear that amendment is substantive in nature,
which is so mentioned in the explanatory notes of amendments ... well.
Once we find that the amendment is substantive in
nature, it cannot be applied retrospectively. The only ground
on which the assessee wants benefit
matter, read down by a
letter of the Deputy Secretary without substantive
amendment of the rule itself and since there is no amendment
at hand
activity for profit" did not
represent any paradigm shift or substantive amendment in law inasmuch as this
amendment was stated to be only consequential
Finance Act, 2004 w.e.f. 01.04.2005 was a substantive
amendment and not a clarificatory amendment and the amendment of
this nature could not have
