MYCON CONSTRUCTION LIMITED Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE arguments advanced before us are same as were raised before the learned single Judge.

(2.) THE learned single Judge after going through the pleadings of the parties and the contentions raised before it crystallised the points into two questions reproduced below :

(3.) WE have perused all the three cases referred above and are of the opinion that in Builders association of India v. Union of India AIR1989 SC 1371 , 1989 (2)ARBLR356 (SC ), (1989 )2 Complj1 (SC ), JT1989 (2 )SC 47 , 1989 (1 )SCALE770 , (1989 )2 scc645 , [1989 ]2 SCR320 , [1989 ]73 STC370 (SC ) and Gannon Dunkerley and Co v. State of rajasthan 1992 (3 )SCALE173 , (1993 )1 SCC364 , [1992 ]supp3 scr103 , [1993 ]88 STC204 (SC ), the point raised was slightly different whereas in State of kerala v. Builders Association of India 1996 IX AD (SC )437 , AIR1997 sc 3640 , JT1996 (10 )SC 665 , 1996 (8 )SCALE730 , (1997 )2 SCC183 , [1996 ]supp9 scr300 , [1997 ]104 STC134 (SC ), the point raised is the same and the aforesaid judgment squarely covers the point in issue before us. We are unable to agree with the submissions made by the counsel for the appellant and affirm the finding recorded by the learned single Judge on question No, 1. On question No. 2 again we reiterate and affirm the finding recorded by the learned single Judge and hold that levy of composition fee could be amended/altered retrospectively.