Saving clause preserving liability includes criminal liability; prosecution survives repeal, and sentence must match statutory limits.

A saving clause preserving "liability incurred" under a repealed sales tax law was read broadly to include criminal liability, so offences already committed remained punishable and prosecution remained maintainable. Sanction for prosecution given by the Additional Collector was upheld because sanction was procedural, the successor law preserved the offence, and the relevant appointment notification continued in force. The High Court's enhancement of sentence was sustained in view of the accused's false returns and duplicate accounts, but the imprisonment had to conform to the statute: rigorous imprisonment was impermissible where only simple imprisonment and fine were authorised.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the liability for an offence committed under the repealed sales tax law was preserved by the saving clause in the repealing Act. (ii) Whether sanction for prosecution given by the Additional Collector was valid. (iii) Whether the enhancement of sentence by the High Court was justified and whether the sentence of rigorous imprisonment could be sustained.

Issue (i): Whether the liability for an offence committed under the repealed sales tax law was preserved by the saving clause in the repealing Act.

Analysis: The expression "liability incurred" in the saving provision was held to be of wide amplitude and capable of including criminal liability as well as civil liability. The scheme of the repealing Act showed no intention to wipe out offences already committed under the repealed Act, particularly when the same type of offence continued to exist under the new enactment. The saving clause was therefore read as preserving the offence and the liability attached to it.

Conclusion: The offence committed under the repealed Act remained punishable and the prosecution was maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether sanction for prosecution given by the Additional Collector was valid.

Analysis: Sanction to prosecute was treated as part of procedure rather than an ingredient of the offence. Since the repealing Act preserved the offence and did not alter the procedural framework, the procedure under the later law applied. The notification appointing the Additional Collector as Collector continued in force by virtue of the saving provision dealing with notifications and appointments, and no fresh revocation was shown.

Conclusion: The sanction granted by the Additional Collector was valid.

Issue (iii): Whether the enhancement of sentence by the High Court was justified and whether the sentence of rigorous imprisonment could be sustained.

Analysis: The High Court was justified in interfering with the lenient sentence because the accused had maintained double sets of accounts and filed false returns, making the case one warranting substantive punishment. However, the statutory punishment authorised only simple imprisonment and fine, not rigorous imprisonment. The sentence therefore required correction to conform to the statutory limit.

Conclusion: The enhancement was upheld, but the sentence was altered from rigorous imprisonment to simple imprisonment.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed on the merits, with only a technical correction made to the form of imprisonment imposed.

Ratio Decidendi: A saving clause preserving "liability incurred" includes criminal liability for offences committed under the repealed law, and procedural requirements for prosecution under the successor regime may validly apply where the offence itself is saved.

---