The key legal question is: Can a law amended today be applied to past transactions or assessment years if the proceedings for those years are instituted post-amendment?
The related question to ponder over is what is the position of law when the amendment is beneficial to the tax payer but has not been applied retrospectively.
General Rule: Prospective vs. Retrospective Application
As a general principle of law:
“A statute is presumed to be prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective operation.”
— Supreme Court in “Govind Das v. ITO” (1976) 103 ITR 123 (SC)
Tax laws, which impose liabilities or affect substantive rights, are typically construed prospectively. However, if a law is procedural or clarificatory, courts have accepted retrospective application, even to past assessment years.
In other words, substantive law imposing a tax liability or affecting substantive rights of the taxpayer cannot be applied retrospectively unless there being an express intention of legislature, meaning thereby that there is no presumption as to retrospective effect of substantive provisions.
Key Judicial Pronouncements
1. CIT v. Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 466 (SC)
This landmark Constitution Bench decision clarified that:
– Substantive amendments affecting rights and liabilities apply prospectively;
– Procedural amendments (such as mode of recovery, appeal filing) may apply retrospectively, unless expressly stated otherwise.
2. S.L. Srinivasa Jute Twine Mills v. Union of India (2006) 2 SCC 740
The Supreme Court held that unless a statute is clarificatory or declaratory, it cannot have retrospective effect.
Implication in GST and Income Tax Cases
The same principle shall apply in GST and income tax cases. If the post amendment provision is substantive in nature, going by the Court rulings and position of law in this regard, law cannot be applied retrospectively unless expressly provided but where the amendment is merely procedural or clarificatory in nature, it may be applied in pre-amendment period as well.
This principle is based on the proposition that no person shall be charged with an offence with retrospective effect which was not an offence at the time when it was committed.
In Income Tax:
In CIT v. Reliance Jute and Industries Ltd. (1979) 120 ITR 921 (SC), the Supreme Court clarified that the assessment year is the unit of taxation and changes in law after the end of the assessment year cannot govern tax liability unless the amendment is retrospective. Meaning thereby that the law as it stands during the relevant period is applicable.
In the case of Karimtharuvi Tea Estate Ltd vs State Of Kerala, the question that came up before the honorable SC was whether any surcharge can be levied on agricultural income for the AY 1957-58?
In this case the surcharge Act came into force from September 1, 1957 and was not given retrospective operation. Section 6 of that Act notified that surcharge shall not be levied on assessments on the turnover or income of the year 1956-57 onwards but that it shall be confined only to assessments made on or after September 1, 1957.
It was held that the Surcharge Act having come into force on September 1, 1957. and the said Act not being retrospective in operation, it could not be regarded as law in force at the commencement of the year of assessment 1957-58. Since the Surcharge Act was not the law in force on April 1, 1957, no surcharge could be levied- under the said Act against the appellant in the assessment Year 1957-58. In the result, the appeal is allowed with costs. Appeal allowed.
Practical Scenarios
Scenario:
– Amendment is clarificatory or procedural (e.g., change in appeal filing timeline): Retrospective, applicable to ongoing proceedings.
– Amendment introduces new tax liability or penalty: Prospective, applicable only to future periods.
– Proceedings (e.g., reassessment or SCN) initiated after amendment for earlier years: Law as it stood during the tax period applies unless procedure is involved.
Conclusion
The law prevailing on the date of the transaction or tax period generally governs substantive rights and liabilities, even if the proceedings are initiated later. However, procedural amendments may apply to pending or future proceedings.
Unless the statute explicitly states retrospective intent or the amendment is clarificatory in nature, retrospective application is not presumed—a principle rooted in fairness and legal certainty.
Key Takeaways
– Substantive amendments are prospective unless stated otherwise.
– Procedural or clarificatory changes may apply to pending cases.
– For assessment or tax periods before the amendment, proceedings initiated after amendment must be governed by the law as it stood during that period, unless procedure alone is in question.
– Tax professionals must analyze the nature of the amendment and judicial interpretations before advising on applicability.
Author Bio
