Tax liability under a repeal-saving clause arises from the charging provision, not from later assessment or quantification.

The expression "liability already incurred" in section 41 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 includes the liability to pay tax arising under the charging provision and is not limited to an assessed or quantified amount. The Court treated assessment as machinery for quantifying an existing tax liability, not as the source of liability itself. It rejected the assessee's narrower reading because it would undermine the saving effect of the repeal clause and defeat revenue lawfully preserved under the repealed Act. Taxability was held to arise when the taxable sale or purchase occurs, even though assessment and enforcement follow later.

---

---

Issues: Whether the words "liability already incurred" in section 41 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 include the liability to pay tax, or are confined to an assessed or quantified liability.

Analysis: The saving provision in section 41 was construed as preserving the obligations and liabilities arising under the repealed enactments, including liability created by the charging provision. The Court held that liability to pay tax springs from the charging section itself and is not dependent on assessment. Assessment was treated only as machinery for quantifying the already existing liability. The interpretation urged by the assessee was rejected because it would defeat the purpose of the repeal-saving clause and would deprive the State of revenue lawfully earned under the repealed Act. The Court preferred the view that taxability arises when taxable purchases or sales occur, even though enforcement and quantification follow later by assessment.

Conclusion: The expression "liability already incurred" includes the liability to pay tax and is not confined to quantified assessment liability. The challenge to the assessment therefore fails.

---