2017 (9) TMI 858 - SC - VAT and Sales Tax

Jurisdiction - power of review - whether the exercise of revisional power under Section 40 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 after its repeal on 1.4.2003, by the Haryana Value Added Tax, 2003 is sustainable? - Held that - A simple repeal of an Act leaves no room for expression of a contrary opinion. However, if the repeal is followed by a fresh enactment on the same subject, the applicability of the General Clauses Act would undoubtedly require an examination of the language in the new enactment to see if it expresses a different intention from the earlier Act. The enquiry would necessitate an examination if the old rights and liabilities are kept alive or whether the new Act manifests an intention to do away with or destroy them. If the new Act manifests a different intention, the application of the General Clauses Act will stand excluded. There were no proceedings pending against 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 The repeal and saving clause in Section 61 of the Act of 2003, saved only pending proceedings under the repealed Act.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. 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.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Revisional power under Section 40 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 after its repeal by the Haryana Value Added Tax, 2003.

Analysis:
The judgment dealt with the common question of law regarding the sustainability of exercising revisional power under Section 40 of the Act of 1973 after its repeal by the Act of 2003. The Court considered a batch of appeals and provided a comprehensive analysis. The key issue was whether the revisional power under the old Act could be invoked after the new Act came into force.

The facts of the case involved a sales tax assessment completed under the Act of 1973, with a refund ordered in 2000. Subsequently, the Act of 1973 was repealed in 2003, and a show cause notice was issued in 2004 for revision under Section 40 of the old Act. The High Court held that such revision was unsustainable post-repeal, as only pending proceedings were saved by the new Act's saving clause.

The appellant argued that the revision was justified as the refund was wrongly obtained, falling within the saved rights under the General Clauses Act. The Court examined relevant case laws to determine the scope of revisional power in fiscal legislation and the authority's responsibility to ensure assessments comply with the law.

The respondent contended that the repeal and saving clause of the new Act excluded the application of the General Clauses Act, and subsequent amendments confirmed this exclusion. The Court compared the unamended and amended provisions of the Act to understand the legislative intent.

The Court emphasized that the new Act's saving clause only preserved pending proceedings under the old Act. Since no proceedings were pending against the respondent, the exercise of revisional power post-repeal was deemed unsustainable. Referring to legal precedents, the Court highlighted the importance of legislative intent in interpreting the effect of a repeal followed by fresh legislation.

The judgment concluded that interpreting Section 4 of the General Clauses Act to save the revisional power without pending proceedings would render subsequent amendments redundant. Any incongruous interpretation leading to absurdity had to be avoided, and the Court dismissed the appeals lacking merit.

In one of the appeals, an additional ground regarding the power of review under the old Act was raised, but the Court found the legislative provisions different and upheld the High Court's order without interference.