Accrued tax immunity survives repeal unless the new sales tax law clearly shows a contrary intention.

On repeal and re-enactment, accrued rights and immunities under the earlier sales tax law continued unless the new statute showed a contrary intention. The article explains that tobacco had already been taxed at the purchase stage under the repealed Madras General Sales Tax Act, and that protection against being taxed again on the same goods was preserved by the saving principle in the later general clauses law. The shift in the taxable point to the first sale under the new sales tax regime did not, by itself, extinguish that immunity. The attempted levy at the sale point was therefore not sustainable because the repeal did not abrogate the existing protection against double taxation.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner's immunity from sales tax on tobacco, which had already been taxed at the purchase point under the repealed Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939, survived the repeal and re-enactment so as to prevent taxation at the sale point under the General Sales Tax Act, 1125.

Analysis: The petitioner had already suffered tax on the purchases of tobacco under section 3(5) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939, which protected a dealer from being taxed again on the sale of the same goods. The later amendment and the General Sales Tax Act, 1125, changed the taxable point for tobacco to the first sale in the State, but the repeal of the earlier Act had to be read with the saving principle in section 4(c) of the Interpretation and General Clauses Act, 1125, corresponding to section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. In the absence of a different intention in the new legislation, rights and immunities accrued under the repealed enactment continue, and the new notification could not destroy that protection.

Conclusion: The petitioner's immunity from further taxation on the same goods survived the repeal, and the attempted levy at the sale point was not sustainable.

Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded because the repeal and re-enactment did not evince an intention to abrogate the protection against double taxation on the same commodity.

Ratio Decidendi: On repeal followed by re-enactment, accrued rights and immunities under the repealed law continue unless the new law manifests a contrary intention.

---