Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2015 (12) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (12) TMI 469 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxWhether in view of the judgments of the Supreme Court in Hari Shanker versus Rao Girdhari Lal Chowdhury [1961 (12) TMI 87 - SUPREME COURT] and Shiv Shakti Cooperative Housing Society versus Swaraj Developers [2003 (4) TMI 563 - SUPREME COURT] declaring the power of revision as not a substantive right but merely an enabling provision, the provision for a revision under Section 10B of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 would on the repeal of that Act not be saved under Section 81 (2) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 - Held that:- since the proceeding for eviction was pending when the repealing Act came into operation, Section 6 of the General Clauses Act would be applicable. The words "any right accrued" in Section 6 included the landlord's right to evict a tenant in case a proceeding was pending when the repeal came in. When a repeal is followed by fresh legislation on the same subject, it is necessary to consider the provisions of the new legislation for the purpose of determining whether they indicate a 'different intention' within the meaning of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act. The line of inquiry is not whether the new enactment expressly keeps alive old rights and liabilities but whether it manifests an intention to destroy them (State of Punjab Vs Mohar Singh [1954 (10) TMI 38 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] followed in Gammon India Ltd Vs Special Chief Secretary [2006 (2) TMI 278 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA]. In other words, whenever there is a repeal of an enactment the consequences which are enunciated in Section 6 of the U P General Clause Act - in relation to the State of Uttar Pradesh - will follow unless a different intention appears in the repealing statute. Where the repeal has been followed by fresh legislation on the same subject, the purpose of considering the provisions of the new legislation is to determine whether they indicate a different intention. In the State of Uttar Pradesh, a revisional power has been conferred on the Commissioner both under the erstwhile UP Trade Tax Act as well as under the UP VAT Act which repealed the former Act. Moreover, as we have noticed earlier, the revisional power in Section 56 of the UP VAT Act is pari materia with that which is contained in Section 10-B of the erstwhile Act save and except that now an authorisation for the exercise of the power by the Joint Commissioner is to be made by the Commissioner and not by the State Government as was the case under the previous legislation. Both the erstwhile legislation as well as the new legislation provide for a remedy of a revision to the Commissioner. The intent of the new Act was evidently not to abrogate that remedy of a revision. - even the assessment that took place was after 1 January 2008, on 9 November 2009. The power of the revisional authority to call for and examine the records for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of the order of assessment and to pass such order with respect thereto as he thinks fit is, hence, unaffected by the repeal. This power is intrinsically connected with the right of the authority to ensure that the assessment has been carried out in accordance with law. This imposes a corresponding obligation and liability on the assessee where it is found that the assessment was otherwise than in accordance with law. One cannot be disassociated from the other. There is a difference in the language of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act 1897 and Section 6 of the U P General Clauses Act 1904. However, we are of the view that this distinction in the language will have no practical meaning or consequence to the construction which has been placed by us on the provisions of the repealed and the repealing legislation. - judgments of the two Division Benches of this Court in Dharma Rice Mill (2010 (4) TMI 979 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT) and Kumar Rice Mills (2010 (7) TMI 1009 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT), insofar as they hold that the remedy of a revision against an order of assessment under the UP Trade Tax Act provided to the Commissioner under Section 10-B survives the repeal lay down the correct principle of law. The remedy is saved by virtue of the provisions of Section 81 of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act 2008 read with Section 6 of the Uttar Pradesh General Clauses Act 1904. - Appeal disposed of.
|