Repeal and re-enactment did not destroy protection against double taxation where no clear contrary intention appeared.

Turnover already taxed at the purchase point under the repealed Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939 was treated as protected from a second levy after the Travancore-Cochin General Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1957 came into force. The earlier immunity from double taxation, read with accrued-liability preservation under the General Clauses Act, 1125, survived repeal unless the later statute clearly showed a contrary intention. The transitional provisions in section 26A and Schedule II were construed as continuing existing legal relationships in Malabar, not as destroying the earlier protection. No clear legislative intent displaced that saved position.

---

---

Issues: Whether turnover already taxed at the purchase point under the repealed Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939 remained immune from a fresh levy after the Travancore-Cochin General Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1957 came into force in Malabar District, and whether the later Act disclosed a contrary intention sufficient to displace the saved right.

Analysis: Under section 3(5) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939, where goods had already borne tax at the purchase point, the dealer was not to be taxed again on a sale of the same goods. The repeal by Act 12 of 1957 did not, by itself, extinguish the liability already incurred under the old Act, because section 4(c) of the General Clauses Act, 1125 preserved accrued liabilities and the correlative right not to be taxed twice. The transitory arrangement in section 26A and Schedule II of the General Sales Tax Act, 1125 showed an intention to continue existing legal relationships in the Malabar area during the transition, not to destroy the immunity attached to the earlier purchase tax. No clear or precise language in the later Act indicated a contrary legislative intention.

Conclusion: The turnover remained not liable to tax under the later enactment, and the contention that the repeal and re-enactment destroyed the assessee's protection was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the earlier tax incidence and the associated immunity were preserved, so the disputed turnover could not be brought to tax again.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a repeal is followed by re-enactment on the same subject, accrued liabilities and the corresponding statutory protection against double taxation continue unless the later statute manifests a clear contrary intention.

---