LexM/S NARESH KUMAR GUPTA versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 718 : 2025 INSC 719 M/s Naresh Kumar Gupta v. State of Punjab & Another (Civil Appeal No. 4033 of 2025) 01 May 2025 [B.V. Nagarathna* and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the amendment to s.29 of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (PVAT Act) by the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2013 is constitutionally valid or not. Headnotes† Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 – Amendment to s.29 – Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2013 – Constitutional validity of amendment to s.29 of Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 by the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2013 – High Court held that the amendment cannot be declared as invalid: Held: On a perusal of the un-amended s.29 of the Act and its amended version, it is evident that under the un-amended provision, the initial limitation period of three years could be extended to six years by the Commissioner by an order in writing where circumstances so warranted – The order of the Commissioner extending the limitation period to six years had been a subject matter of litigation before the High Court in several cases, which had resulted in huge revenue loss – It was to obviate such consequences that the Legislature of the State of Punjab thought it fit to amend s.29 of the PVAT Act – The High Court, vide impugned judgment found this amendment as not so unreasonable or excessive as to warrant it being declared invalid – It held that the proviso itself establishes that the opening part of the amended s.29(4) is retrospective and that to construe the opening part of s.29(4) as being prospective would render the proviso and Explanation (1) thereto otiose – It noted that legislature has the power to enact the laws, including laws dealing with taxation, with retrospective effect – Further, the legislature giving its own meaning or interpretation to a provision through a legislative fiat * Author [2025] 5 S.C.R. 719 M/s Naresh Kumar Gupta v. State of Punjab & Another does not encroach upon the Courts’ domain to interpret the laws enacted by it – That the legislature could have done so originally or subsequently by an amendment which could be both prospective and retrospective – It held that sub-section (10A) to s.29 of the PVAT Act must be read along with the rest of the Section and if read so, it would be clear that the defect in the actions i.e. the manner in which the proviso to the unamended s.29(4) was implemented is removed – The High Court also observed that the clarification provided in Explanation 2 to the amended s.29 of the PVAT Act does not amount to a declaration that the judgments passed by it based on the unamended s.29 of the aforesaid Act were wrong – It held that the legislature has simply removed the basis on which those judgments were rendered and that the legislature was well within its powers to do so – To the question whether by an amendment the Legislature could extend the period for assessment even though the original period for assessment had expired, the High Court relied on the judgment of this Court in Additional Commissioner (Legal) & Another v. Jyoti Traders & Another, to answer in the affirmative – There is no reason to interfere with the judgment of the High Court. [Paras 9, 10, 11, 12] Precedent – Binding effect of the judgment in State of Punjab v. Nokia India Pvt. Ltd. (Nokia): Held: For the sake of clarity, this Court observes that since the judgment of this Court in Nokia is now being restricted to the Act applicable in State of Punjab and the Act applicable in the Union of Territory of Chandigarh, the said judgment may not be a binding precedent insofar as other States’ enactments are concerned – In other words, liberty is reserved to any aggrieved party to contend that the judgment of this Court in Nokia is not applicable and therefore could be distinguished. [Para 17(c)] Case Law Cited Additional Commissioner (Legal) & Another v. Jyoti Traders & Another [1998] 3 Suppl. SCR 67 : (1999) 2 SCC 77 – referred to. State of Punjab v. Nokia India Pvt. Ltd. [2014] 11 SCR 331 : (2014) 16 SCC 410 – clarified. Amrit Banaspati Company Ltd. v. State of Punjab & Others, Civil Writ Petition No. 21811 of 2014 decided by the High Court 720 [2025] 5 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports of Punjab & Haryana; M/s. Samsung (India) Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Commercial Tax, UP, STRP NO. 479/2017 decided by the Allahabad High Court; State of Karnataka & Another v. Intex Technologies Ind
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.