India to tax transactions with retrospective effect. But going back by.....take a guess...!

The Finance Minister made a landmark announcement as part of his Budget speech, effectively amending India’s laws to tax transactions that derive their value in India, even if said transactions are made by companies not registered or incorporated in India. Before anyone could applaud him, however, the minister revealed his sleight of hand and added that the amendment would have retroactive effect.
The media went into a frenzy saying this was against the rule of law and that Pranab Mukherjee was being “penny wise, pound foolish”. Analysts and market observers were quick to point out that this was done to repeal the judgement of the Supreme Court absolving Vodafone of tax dues in the Vodafone-Essar case. While digital media initially reported that the amendment would have retroactive effect starting from 1962, i.e. 50 years from today, Pranabda, in his post-budget interview clarified that both the assessment and the report were wrong. “They think I’m trying to earn a quick billion here and one there to fix the gaping hole in my fabric, errr… fiscal deficit. They don’t understand the magnitude of what they are protesting against”, he told reporters here. He also mentioned that the amendment is to have retroactive effect, not from 1962, but much beyond, from 1662. He suggested that an overenthusiastic reporter probably zoomed in through the Lok Sabha CCTV cameras and got an inverted image (any resemblance to actual inverted images being coincidental) of the number 6 reflected through Pranabda’s rather thick glasses. “You see, those people condemning this move have no idea about the level of patriotism in it”, he said, making a snide jab at overzealous economist Subramaniam Swamy and his twitter army of patriotic tweeples. “If these people had read their history books properly, they’d know that the English East India Company, registered in London, derived most, if not all, of its gains on Indian soil. Their loot, exponentially much more than what we’ve managed to do, post-liberalisation and all, started sometime around 1662 when Bombay was given to Charles-II of England, as dowry by the Portuguese. Dadabhai Naoroji (a grand old man, if he were alive would go bonkers over the numbers quoted by the Comptroller and Auditor General, about the notional losses suffered in allocating scarce natural resources to corporate firms with connections), has given us his eminent estimate of the magnitude of the drain of wealth from India during the colonial rule of the British empire starting from 1662. So we thought we would fix that year as the date from which the amendment takes effect. As you jargon-hungry reporters would have realised, it makes aesthetic sense to have a number like 250 appear on headlines, so that is the number of years we are going back to collect what is due to us.”
The Prime Minister of (you thought India? That fellow rarely speaks for us to quote him!) UK, who had somehow managed to quell strong public outrage over annual aids of over $440bn to India, will find it very difficult to justify such a drastic move by India to bankrupt the country’s finances. “We are already paying back what we took. To the cooks and taxi drivers and of late, to steel tycoons” he said, a pointed remark at the changing demographic of Indian income earners in Britain.
When Pranabda was questioned about what the government would do with the windfall of money it plans to raise in this manner, he flashed a set of perfectly white teeth, thanks to Colgate and not the Coalgate that’s been on the news lately.” We will have more schemes”, he said, similar to the existing schemes that provide free sub-standard rice to the poor, who might reject the ration shops if the government invested the same money in getting them jobs and might no longer be inclined to vote for the party in power.