Saving clause and retrospective amendment cannot create new jurisdiction for escaped assessment under a repealed sales tax law.

An escaped-assessment order could not be made under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959 for an assessment completed under the repealed 1939 Act, because the rights and liabilities arising from that assessment were governed by the law in force when the return was filed. The saving clause preserved accrued rights, obligations and liabilities under the repealed Act, and the earlier escaped-turnover procedure remained controlled by rule 17 rather than the new Act's assessment machinery. Section 16(1) could not be used to enlarge the assessing authority's jurisdiction, and the later retrospective amendment likewise did not confer that jurisdiction. The order was therefore without jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: Whether an escaped-assessment order could be made under section 16(1) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959 in respect of an assessment completed under the repealed Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939, having regard to the saving provision in section 61(1) and the later retrospective amendment.

Analysis: The assessment in question had been made under the old Act and the rights and liabilities arising from that assessment had to be determined according to the law in force when the return was filed. The saving clause preserved the previous operation of the repealed Act and protected rights, titles, obligations and liabilities already acquired or incurred under it. Under the old regime, escaped-turnover proceedings after appellate revision were governed by rule 17 of the Madras General Sales Tax Rules and the power was not that of the original assessing authority under the new Act. Section 16(1) of the new Act could not be applied so as to enlarge the jurisdiction of the assessing officer in a case already governed by the repealed statute. The later retrospective amendment did not alter this position, as it likewise preserved accrued rights and liabilities and did not confer the required jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The escaped-assessment order was without jurisdiction and could not be sustained against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the reassessment failed and the dismissal of the petition was justified.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a repealed sales tax enactment has already created the relevant rights and liabilities, a later enactment cannot be used through its saving clause or retrospective amendment to confer a new jurisdiction on the original assessing authority contrary to the scheme of the repealed law.

---