LexM/S. GAMMON INDIA LTD. versus SPL. CHIEF SECRETARY AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B MIS. GAMMON INDIA LTD. v. SPL. CHIEF SECRETARY AND ORS. FEBRUARY 16, 2006 [RUMA PAL, DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND DAL VEER BHANDARI, JJ.] Sales Tax: C Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957: Sections 5-B(2) and 7- A(2)(ii). Sales Fax-Rights and liabilities accrued or incurred under repealed Act-Continuance of-Even after its repeal---Construction Company applied D for concessional tax available to registered dealers-Allegations that the Company had falsely issued Form G and claimed reduced rates of tax from sellers-Penalty proceedings initiated under S. 7-A(2)(ii) of the APGST Ac/- Assistant Commissioner (Commercial Taxes) confirmed additional tax and • penalty---During pendency of appeals before Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) • APGST Act repealed and AP VAT Act came into force on 1.4.2005-High E Court held that Assistant Commissioner was not prohibited from initiating and completing penalty proceedings under the APGST Act even after its repeal---Correctness of--Held: Whenever there is repeal of an enactment, the consequences laid dcwn in Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 will follow unless, as the Section itself says, a different intention appears-In the instant case, there is a simultaneous repeal and reenactment and the APVAT F Act clearly saves the earlier provisions in toto-Consequently, rights and liabilities accrued or incurred under the APGST Act shall continue even after _._ it is repealed-Hence, the Assistant Commissioner (Commercial Taxes) was fully justified in initiating and completing the proceedings under the APGST Act even after it is repealed-Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005- G General Clauses Act, 1897, S. 6-Jnterpretation of Statutes. Doctrines: Doctrine of Repeal-Explained H 304 • GAMMON INDIA I.TD. r ClllEF SECRETARY 305 The appellant was a construction company. According to the A respondents, the appellant had falsely issued Form G and claimed reduced rates of tax from the sellers. Show-cause notices were issued by the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes for imposing penalty and accordingly proceedings were initiated under Section 7-A(2)(iii) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957. The Assistant Commissioner B of Commercial Taxes after considering the grievance of the appellant confirmed the additional tax and penalty. The appellant had filed appeals before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) which were pending adjudication. During the pendency of the appeals, the A.P.G.S. Tax Act was repealed and the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 came into force w.e.f. 1.4.2005. The appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging c the jurisdiction of the Assistant Commissioner to initiate and complete the penalty proceedings after the repeal of the A.P.G.S. Tax Act. The High Court, while dismissing the writ petition, held that the Assistant Commissioner was not prohibited from initiating and completing the said D proceedings. Hence the appeal. The following questions arose before the Court:- Whether the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes had jurisdiction to initiate and complete penalty proceedings under the Andhra E Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 after its repeal? Disposing of the appeal, the Court HELD: I. Whenever there is repeal of an enactment, the consequences laid down in Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 will F follow unless, as the Section itself says, a different intention appears. In the case of a simple repeal there is scarcely any room for expression of a contrary opinion. But when the repeal is followed by fresh legislation on the same subject the Court has to look undoubtedly to the provisions of the new Act, but only for the purposes of determining whether they G indicate a different intention. The line of enquiry would be, not whether the new Act expressly keeps alive old rights and liabilities, but whether it manifests an intention to destroy them. Therefore, it is not possible to subscribe to the broad proposition that Section 6 of the General Clauses Act is ruled out when there is repeal of an enactment followed by a fresh legislation. Section 6 would be applicable in such cases also unless the new H 306 SUl'REME COl',RT RLl'OR IS 120061 2 S.C.R. A legislation manifests an intention incompatible with or contrary to the provisions of the Section. 1321-E, GI ..,_. M.S. Shivunundu v. Kurnuwku S1u1e Roud Trunspurt Curpuraliun, J1980
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.