Saving clauses and delegated forum selection under a repealed tax law can preserve jurisdiction and validate the competent authority notification.

A repealing sales tax statute preserved pending proceedings through a saving clause and authorised the State Government to specify the authority competent to exercise functions under the repealed law. That notification validly vested jurisdiction in the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, and the later transfer and omission provisions did not displace that power. The statute also supplied the governing policy and confined the delegated role to identifying the competent forum for tax revisions, so the delegation was not an impermissible surrender of legislative function. On that basis, the revision petition failed on both jurisdictional and constitutional grounds, and the assessment revision order was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes had jurisdiction to hear the pending revision petition in view of the repeal and transfer provisions in the two Acts; (ii) whether the provision empowering the State Government to specify the competent authority amounted to an invalid delegation of legislative power.

Issue (i): whether the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes had jurisdiction to hear the pending revision petition in view of the repeal and transfer provisions in the two Acts.

Analysis: The saving provision in section 40(1) preserved pending legal proceedings as if the repealed sales tax enactment had not been passed, while section 40(2) authorised the State Government to specify the authority competent to exercise functions under the repealed enactment. The later notification specifying the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes operated within that saving framework. The transfer and omission provisions in Act 24 of 1957 did not deprive the Government of the power under section 40(2), and the fact that the matter was transferred before the notification did not matter once the Commissioner had jurisdiction on the date of disposal.

Conclusion: The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes had jurisdiction to deal with the revision petition.

Issue (ii): whether the provision empowering the State Government to specify the competent authority amounted to an invalid delegation of legislative power.

Analysis: The statute indicated the policy and the class of authority to be appointed by linking the delegated power to revision over tax matters arising under the repealed enactment. The function left to the Government was one of implementation and specification of the competent forum, not abdication of an essential legislative function. The delegation was therefore within permissible limits.

Conclusion: The delegation was valid and not ultra vires.

Final Conclusion: The petition failed on both jurisdictional and constitutional grounds, and the assessment revision order was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a repealing statute preserves pending proceedings and simultaneously authorises the Government to specify the authority competent to continue them, that specification prevails over transitional transfer provisions, and such a limited power of specification does not constitute excessive delegation if the statute supplies the governing policy.

---