When we keep in mind the aforesaid parameters laid down by this Court in testing validity of retrospective operation of fiscal laws, we find that the amendement in question fails to meet these tests. The High Court has primarily gone by the fact that there was no unforeseen or unforeseeable financial burden imposed for the past period. That is no correct. Moreover, as can be seen, subsection (20) of Section 19 is altogether new provision introduced for determining the input tax in specified situation, i.e., where goods are sold at a lesser price than the pruchase price of goods. The manner of calculation of the ITC was entirely different before this amendment. In the example, which has been given by us in the earlier part of the judgement, ''dealer'' was entitled to ITC of Rs.10 on release, which was paid by the dealer as VAT while purchasing the goods from the vendors. However, in view of Section 19 (20) inserted by way of amendement, he would now be entitled to ITC of Rs.9.50. This is clearly a provision which is made for the first time to the detriment of the dealers. Such a provision, therefore, cannot have retrospective effect, more so, when vested right had accrued in favour of these dealers in respect of purchases and sales made between January 1,2007 to August 19, 2010. Thus, while upholding the vires of subsection (20) of Section 19, we set aside and strike down Amendement Act 22 of 2010 whereby this amendement was given retrospective effect from January 1, 2007.
