TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 858X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0 of the former Act was exercised on 07.06.2004. The repeal and saving clause in Section 61 of the Act of 2003, saved only pending proceedings under the repealed Act. The intendment clearly was that matters which stood closed under the Act of 1973 had to be given a quietus and could not be reopened. The legislature, in its wisdom having noticed the limitation and constraints under Section 61 of the Act of 2003, made necessary amendments to the same by Act No. 3 of 2010 on 02.04.2010. Any interpretation saving the revisional power under Section 40 of the Act of 1973, without any proceedings pending on the relevant date, by resort to Section 4 of the Punjab General Clause Act, 1858 would render the amendment redundant, and an exercise in futility, something which the legislature never intended to do. Such an incongruous interpretation leading to absurdity has to be avoided. The legislative provisions being different in the precedents cited on behalf of the appellants, the same have no relevance to the issue in controversy. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - Civil Appeal No(s). 10792-10794 of 2011, Civil Appeal No(s). 10795 of 2011, Civil Appeal No(s). 10808 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 792-10794 of 2011. The sales tax assessment of the respondent, for the assessment year 1998-99, was completed and refund ordered on 12.05.2000, under the Act of 1973. Subsequently, the former Act was repealed by the Act of 2003 on 01.04.2003. A show cause notice was issued to the respondent on 07.06.2004 regarding the refund ordered earlier, in exercise of suo-moto revisional powers under Section 40 of the Act of 1973. By order dated 12.07.2004, the respondent was held liable for recovery of ₹ 65,35,632/-. 3. The order for recovery having been challenged by the respondent before the High Court, it was held that resort to Section 40 of the Act of 1973, after coming into force of the new Act on 01.04.2003 was unsustainable, as the repeal and saving clause in Section 61 of the Act of 2003, saved only pending proceedings under the former. Since there were no proceedings pending against the respondent under the repealed Act, on the relevant date, the proceedings thereunder could not be sustained or justified by reference to Section 4 of the Punjab General Clauses Act, 1898. 4. Sh. Manish Paliwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Haryana, submitted that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 (20 of 1973), is hereby repealed : (1) The Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 (20 of 1973), is hereby repealed. Provided that such repeal shall not- ( a) affect the previous operation of the Act so repealed or anything duly done or suffered thereunder; or ( b) affect any right, title, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under the said Act; or ( c) affect any act done or any action taken (including any appointment, notification, notice, order, rule, form regulation, certificate) in the exercise of any power conferred by or under the said Act, and any such act done or any action taken in the exercise of the powers conferred by or under the said Act shall be deemed to have been done or taken in the exercise of the powers conferred by or under the said Act as if this Act were in force on the date on which such act was done or action taken; and all arrears of tax and other amount due at the commencement of this Act may be recovered as if the same had accrued under this Act. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ainst the respondent under the Act of 1973 when the new Act came into force on 01.04.2003. The suo-moto revisional power under Section 40 of the former Act was exercised on 07.06.2004. The repeal and saving clause in Section 61 of the Act of 2003, saved only pending proceedings under the repealed Act. The intendment clearly was that matters which stood closed under the Act of 1973 had to be given a quietus and could not be reopened. 10. The assessment under the Act of 1973 having been completed and refund ordered, the exercise of suo-moto revisional powers under Section 40 of the same after repeal was clearly unsustainable in view of the contrary intention expressed under Section 61 of the Act of 2003, saving only pending proceedings. Section 4 of the Punjab General Clauses Act, 1858 will have no application in view of the contrary intendment expressed in Section 61 of the repealing Act. Had a contrary intention not been expressed, the issues arising for consideration would have been entirely different. The observations in State of Punjab vs. Mohar Singh Pratap Singh, (1955) 1 SCR 893, as extracted below are considered relevant:- 8 .Whenever there is a repeal of an ena ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
