by Mr. CA Swapnil Munot
🌠 In GST, in last 6 years , many amendments were made in law. Some amendments were made prospectively, whereas some were made retrospectively.
🌠 In current scenario, where numerous GST notices / order were issued and authorities deny some benefit of good amendment or impose demand due to amendment, in such case question arises, how to interpret retrospective or prospective implication of GST amendment …
🌠 In this regards, Hon’ble Supreme Court🏛️ in Landmark case of HITENDRA VISHNU THAKUR VS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [Appeal Number : 1994 AIR 2623 1994 SCC (4) 602 JT 1994 (4) 255 1994 SCALE (3)105 dt 02.07.1994] categorically observed that =>
- A statute which affects substantive rights is presumed to be prospective in operation unless made retrospective by expressive
- Whereas a statute which merely affects procedure, is presumed to be retrospective in its application
- Law relating to forum and limitation is procedural in nature, whereas law relating to right of action and right of appeal even though remedial is substantive in nature.
[ Our Comment – Based on this, one may submit that Amendment to Section 16(4) to increase date of availment of ITC from 20th Oct to 30th Nov is procedural in nature and therefore to be applied retrospectively ]
- A procedural statute should not generally speaking be applied retrospectively where the result would be to create new disabilities or obligations or to impose new duties in respect of transactions already accomplished.
- A statute which not only changes the procedure but also creates new rights and liabilities shall be construed to be prospective in operation, unless otherwise provided, either expressly or by necessary implication.”
🌠 In GST, where numerous amendments were made and is still being made, this judgment throw light in understanding and interpreting amendment prospective/retrospective impact and for making submission for any notice/appeal.
Share this content: