Judgment H.G. Ramesh, J. In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the validity of the amendment to subsection (4) of section 4 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (‘the KVAT Act, for short ) by Karnataka Act No.6 of 2007 on the sole ground that in ought to have been given retrospective effect from 02.10.2006. The amendment Act came into force prospectively w.e.f. 01.04.2007. the amended sub-section (4) reads as follows: “(4) Nothwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), subject to such condition as may be prescribed, a registered dealer, if he so elects, may pay tax on the sale of goods specified in SI.No.60 of the third Schedule or any other goods, on the maximum retail price indicated on the label of the container or pack thereof or on such maximum retail price reduced by an amount equal to the tax payable” (the impugned amendment is shown in bold letters) 2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the impugned amendment ought to have been given retrospective effect from 02.10.2006 i.e the date of coming into force of the Drugs (prices control) Amendment order, 2006, as the definition of “Maximum retail price” in the aforesaid Drugs control amendment order states that it shall be inclusive of all taxes. He further submitted that not giving retrospective effect to the amendment from 02.10.2006 has rendered it arbitrary. In support of his submission, he relied upon two judgments of the Supreme Court in Nagpur Improvement Trust v. Vasantrao ( AIR 2002 SC 3499 ) & State of Kerala v. Attesee (A.I. Trading Corporation) [1989) 72 STC 1]. 4. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submitted that payment of tax as per sub-section (4) of Section 4 of the KVAT Act referred to above is only optional and hence the impugned amendment cannot be said to be arbitrary. In support of his submission, he relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Kerala v. Builders Association of India ((1997) 104 STC 134]. 5. In my opinion, the contention of the petitioner that the impugned amendment ought to have been given retrospective effect from 02.10.2006 i.e., the date of commencement of the Drugs Control Amendment Order referred to above is devoid of merit. 5. In my opinion, the contention of the petitioner that the impugned amendment ought to have been given retrospective effect from 02.10.2006 i.e., the date of commencement of the Drugs Control Amendment Order referred to above is devoid of merit. The two judgments of the Supreme Court relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner have no relevance to the contention urged. 6. It is for the Legislature to decide whether a law should be prospective or retrospective. The date of Commencement of a plenary legislation cannot be interfered with unless it offends any constitutional limitations. I find no ground to hold the amendment to be arbitrary for not giving retrospective effect. As it is optional for any dealer to opt for the method of taxation provided under sub-section (4) of Section 4 of the KVAT Act, the impugned amendment cannot be said to offend any Constitutional limitations. There is no compulsion for any dealer to opt for the method of taxation provided by sub-section (4) referred above. It is open to any dealer to pay tax as per the normal method of taxation provided under section 4 of the KVAT Act. It is wholly for the dealer to make a choice, either to opt for the normal method or the alternate method provided under sub-section (4) of section 4 of the KVAT Act. As held by the supreme court in 104 STC 134 referred to above , the constitution does not preclude the legislature from evolving an alternate, simplified and hassle-free method of assessment of tax, making it optional for the assessee. By the impugned amendment, the alternate method of taxation is made more advantageous to the dealer than it was earlier inasmuch as now he can pay tax on the Maximum Retail Price reduced by an amount equal to the tax payable; prior to the amendment, he had to pay tax on the Maximum Retail Price. The writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.