The main legal point established in the judgment is that a provision cannot have retrospective effect if it affects vested rights, even if it is valid and properly interpreted.

JUDGMENT :

A.K. Sikri, J.

Leave granted.

2. We have heard the matter in detail finally at this stage on all issues that are raised. We are of the opinion that special leave petitions need to be granted only on the issue as to whether sub-section (20) of Section 19 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'VAT Act') could be given retrospective effect.

3. All these appeals arise out of common judgment dated July 17, 2013 rendered in batch of writ petitions. In the writ petitions filed by the appellants (hereinafter referred to as 'dealers'), vires of newly inserted sub-section (20) of Section 19 of the VAT Act, vide amendment brought by Amendment Act 22 of 2013 were challenged. This provision though came into force on August 19, 2010, by the aforesaid Amendment Act, was given retrospective effect from January 01, 2007 by Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax (Special Provision) Act, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 2010'). The retrospectivity of the provision was also questioned by the dealers. The dealers had argued that this provision is confiscatory in nature as well as unreasonable and arbitrary and is, therefore, violative of Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and repugnant to the general scheme of the charging provisions of Section 3(2) and 3(3) of the VAT Act. On both the counts, the dealers' challenge has been repelled by the High Court vide impugned judgment July 17, 2013.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. Before us, Mr. Bagaria, learned senior counsel appearing for the dealers in some of these appeals had also argued that even if the aforesaid provision was valid, it was not properly interpreted by the High Court. We have considered this additional submission as well. We may record, at the outset, that insofar as this submission based on interpretation of this provision as well as challenge laid to the constitutional validity of the said provision are concerned, we do not find any merit therein and are of the opinion that the High Court by a well-reasoned and detailed judgment rightly rejected these contentions. It is because of this reason that leave in the special leave petitions is granted only to limited extent as indicated in the beginning of this order. However, before coming to the issue of retrospectivity, we would delve into these two aspects briefly as that discussion would be required in order to understand the question of retrospectivity.

5. The appellants are 'dealers' and registered as such under the provisions of VAT Act. For example, the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 24023-26 of 2013 deals in electronic home appliances. It purchases appliances from local registered dealers on payment of VAT under the VAT invoice issued by the vendors. Thereafter, the appellant re-sells to consumers under VAT invoice charging appropriate VAT on their selling price. It had purchased LCD Televisions from M/s. LG Electronics Private Limited for re-sale. The vendors, i.e., M/s. LG Electronics had charged VAT on the selling price, as per the VAT invoice issued by M/s. LG Electronics to the dealers. Based on the price shown in the invoice, VAT was paid. Under the scheme of VAT Act, as would be seen hereinafter, on re-sale when the VAT is paid by the dealer, the dealer is entitled to avail Input Tax Credit (for short, 'ITC'), i.e., he is entitled to get the credit of the VAT which was paid by the dealer to M/s. LG Electronics on purchase of these T.V. sets from the said vendors.

6. It so happened that after the original tax invoice and availing ITC, the vendor had given discount and purchase credit note was issued for a lesser price. The dealer took into account the price it paid to M/s. LG Electronics after adjusting the discount that was subsequently given to the dealer to arrive at net cost and adding VAT which was limited to the vendors by the dealer, the goods were