- (1.) In this batch of Civil Appeals, the following issues arose for determination before the Allahabad High Court: (1) Whether Sub-section (2B) of Section 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, inserted on 12th May, 2000 by the Finance Act of 2000 is retrospective and (2) Whether Section 120 of the Finance Act, 2000 which was a validating Act was invalid inasmuch as it purports to validate a provision which had never existed on the statute book
(2.) For the sake of convenience, we may refer to a few facts in the lead matter in the case of Shivalik Cellulose Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. Civil Appeal No. 2354 of 2007.
(3.) Prior to 12th May, 2000, there was no provision for levy of interest for delayed payment under Section 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 1956 Act). On 12th May, 2000, Finance Act 2000 came into force. Vide Section 119 of the Finance Act, 2000, Sub-section (2B) came to be inserted in Section 9 of the 1956 Act. We quote hereinbelow Sub-section (2B) which stood inserted in Section 9: If the tax payable by any dealer under this Act is not paid in time, the dealer shall be liable to pay interest for delayed payment of such tax and all the provisions for delayed payment of such tax and all the provisions relating to due date for payment of tax, rate of interest for delayed payment of tax, of the general sales tax law of each State, shall apply in relation to due date for payment of tax, rate of interest for delayed payment of tax, and assessment and collection of interest for delayed payment of tax under this Act in such States as if the tax and the interest payable under this Act were a tax and an interest under such sales tax law.;