Summary
After repeal of Haryana’s 1973 sales-tax law, the authorities invoked its suo motu revisional power to reopen completed assessments and refunds. The Court held that the original saving clause in the 2003 VAT Act preserved only pending proceedings and manifested an intention against reopening concluded matters. General Clauses Act savings could not override that intention, and the State’s appeals were dismissed.
Issues
- Whether suo motu revision under the repealed sales-tax Act could reopen an assessment where no proceeding was pending on repeal.
- Whether general repeal savings preserved that power despite the specific saving provision in the VAT Act.
Provisions considered
- Section 61, before its 2010 amendment, Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003The original repeal-and-saving provision protected pending proceedings and expressed a contrary intention excluding reopening of concluded assessments through the repealed Act. (¶ 7–11)
- Section 40, Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973Post-repeal suo motu revision was unsustainable where the completed assessment and refund were not subject to pending proceedings at repeal. (¶ 9–11)
Held
- Where repeal is followed by fresh legislation on the same subject, the new enactment must be examined for a contrary intention. General savings do not apply against a manifested intention to extinguish the earlier rights or liabilities in question. (¶¶ 8, 10)
- No proceeding against this assessee was pending on 1 April 2003. The assessment and refund had concluded before repeal, and revision commenced in June 2004. The original Section 61 saved pending proceedings only, so general statutory savings did not preserve this later revision. (¶¶ 2–3, 9–10)
- Reading the original provision as already preserving such revisional power would render the later 2010 legislative amendment redundant. The judgment did not uphold the challenged 2004 revision by invoking that subsequent amendment. (¶¶ 7, 11)
- In the connected appeals concerning review by the Deputy Excise and Taxation Officer, the Court noted that review power under the new Act was exclusively vested in the Tribunal. Differently framed statutory precedents supplied no basis for interference. (¶ 12–14)
Result
State’s appeals dismissed; High Court order left undisturbed.