Star India Private Limited v. Chief Commissioner of Central Excise

280 ITR 321Supreme Court of India2006#2443 most cited

What is Star India Private Limited v. Chief Commissioner of Central Excise authority for?

The Supreme Court holds that while the Legislature can enact laws retrospectively, this power does not normally extend to creating an offence or penal liability retroactively, nor to withdrawing a benefit already granted under a statute through retrospective amendment.

47

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Star India Private Limited · 280 ITR 321 · retrospective legislation · retrospective amendment · penal provision retrospectively · withdrawal of benefit retrospectively · create offence retrospectively · validation clause · legislative power · scope of retrospectivity

Judgments citing Star India Private Limited v. Chief Commissioner of Central Excise

The Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi-II vs. Anand Prakash

ITA-120/2007HC Delhi27 Feb 2009
Section 234BSection 260A

…the Tribunal, by its impugned order dated 20.4.2006, inter alia, concluded that the chargeability of interest was in the nature of quasi-punishment and applied the decision in the case of Star India Private Limited v. Chief Commissioner of Central Excise 280 ITR 321 (SC) wherein the Supreme Court observed as under:- “The liability to pay interest would only arise on default and is really in the nature of a quasi-punishment. Such liability although created retrospectively could not entail the punishment of payment of interest with retrospective effect.” It may be pointed out that these observations w…

The Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi-II vs. Anand Prakash

ITA-119/2007HC Delhi27 Feb 2009
Section 234BSection 260A

…the Tribunal, by its impugned order dated 20.4.2006, inter alia, concluded that the chargeability of interest was in the nature of quasi-punishment and applied the decision in the case of Star India Private Limited v. Chief Commissioner of Central Excise 280 ITR 321 (SC) wherein the Supreme Court observed as under:- “The liability to pay interest would only arise on default and is really in the nature of a quasi-punishment. Such liability although created retrospectively could not entail the punishment of payment of interest with retrospective effect.” It may be pointed out that these observations w…

The Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi-II vs. Maha Maya General Finance Limited

ITA-298/2007HC Delhi27 Feb 2009
Section 234BSection 260A

…the Tribunal, by its impugned order dated 20.4.2006, inter alia, concluded that the chargeability of interest was in the nature of quasi-punishment and applied the decision in the case of Star India Private Limited v. Chief Commissioner of Central Excise 280 ITR 321 (SC) wherein the Supreme Court observed as under:- “The liability to pay interest would only arise on default and is really in the nature of a quasi-punishment. Such liability although created retrospectively could not entail the punishment of payment of interest with retrospective effect.” It may be pointed out that these observations w…

The Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi-II vs. Maha Maya General Finance Limited

ITA-299/2007HC Delhi27 Feb 2009
Section 234BSection 260A

…the Tribunal, by its impugned order dated 20.4.2006, inter alia, concluded that the chargeability of interest was in the nature of quasi-punishment and applied the decision in the case of Star India Private Limited v. Chief Commissioner of Central Excise 280 ITR 321 (SC) wherein the Supreme Court observed as under:- “The liability to pay interest would only arise on default and is really in the nature of a quasi-punishment. Such liability although created retrospectively could not entail the punishment of payment of interest with retrospective effect.” It may be pointed out that these observations w…

The Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi-II vs. Anand Prakash

ITA-116/2007HC Delhi27 Feb 2009
Section 234BSection 260A

…the Tribunal, by its impugned order dated 20.4.2006, inter alia, concluded that the chargeability of interest was in the nature of quasi-punishment and applied the decision in the case of Star India Private Limited v. Chief Commissioner of Central Excise 280 ITR 321 (SC) wherein the Supreme Court observed as under:- “The liability to pay interest would only arise on default and is really in the nature of a quasi-punishment. Such liability although created retrospectively could not entail the punishment of payment of interest with retrospective effect.” It may be pointed out that these observations w…

The Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi-II vs. Anand Prakash

ITA-118/2007HC Delhi27 Feb 2009
Section 234BSection 260A

…the Tribunal, by its impugned order dated 20.4.2006, inter alia, concluded that the chargeability of interest was in the nature of quasi-punishment and applied the decision in the case of Star India Private Limited v. Chief Commissioner of Central Excise 280 ITR 321 (SC) wherein the Supreme Court observed as under:- “The liability to pay interest would only arise on default and is really in the nature of a quasi-punishment. Such liability although created retrospectively could not entail the punishment of payment of interest with retrospective effect.” It may be pointed out that these observations w…

The Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi-II vs. Maha Maya General Finance Limited

ITA-297/2007HC Delhi27 Feb 2009
Section 234BSection 260A

…the Tribunal, by its impugned order dated 20.4.2006, inter alia, concluded that the chargeability of interest was in the nature of quasi-punishment and applied the decision in the case of Star India Private Limited v. Chief Commissioner of Central Excise 280 ITR 321 (SC) wherein the Supreme Court observed as under:- “The liability to pay interest would only arise on default and is really in the nature of a quasi-punishment. Such liability although created retrospectively could not entail the punishment of payment of interest with retrospective effect.” It may be pointed out that these observations w…