Accrued sales tax liability survives amendment, and differential treatment between continuing and new dealers is not Article 14 discrimination.

Sales tax liability that had already accrued under the pre-amendment regime continued for the period from 1 July 1969 to 31 October 1969, because the enhanced non-taxable turnover limit did not retrospectively extinguish liabilities already incurred and the saving language preserved them. A continuing dealer was also held not to be similarly situated to a dealer commencing business after the amendment, so the differential treatment in the taxing scheme was treated as a valid classification and not hostile discrimination. The reference was answered in favour of the revenue, with both the liability issue and the Article 14 challenge decided against the assessee.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assessee's liability to pay sales tax continued for the period 1st July, 1969 to 31st October, 1969 despite the amendment raising the non-taxable turnover limit. (ii) Whether the differential treatment between a continuing dealer and a dealer commencing business after the amendment amounted to discrimination under Article 14.

Issue (i): Whether the assessee's liability to pay sales tax continued for the period 1st July, 1969 to 31st October, 1969 despite the amendment raising the non-taxable turnover limit.

Analysis: The liability had already accrued under the pre-amendment statutory scheme and was not displaced merely because the amending Act enhanced the exemption threshold with effect from 1st July, 1969. The reference to the notification in the relevant provisions was understood as referring to the operative exemption framework, and the saving language was held to preserve liabilities already incurred. The earlier decision on the same issue was followed.

Conclusion: The assessee's liability continued for the period in question and the question was answered against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the differential treatment between a continuing dealer and a dealer commencing business after the amendment amounted to discrimination under Article 14.

Analysis: A continuing dealer and a new dealer were held not to be similarly situated for the purpose of the taxing scheme. Legislative benefits or burdens may legitimately differ between those classes, and such differential treatment does not amount to hostile discrimination where the classification is based on a real distinction.

Conclusion: No violation of Article 14 was found and the contention of discrimination failed.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered in favour of the revenue, holding that the assessee remained liable for the disputed period and that the amendment did not offend Article 14.

Ratio Decidendi: A tax liability that has already accrued under an existing statutory regime continues unless the amending law clearly takes it away, and a reasonable classification between continuing dealers and new entrants in a taxing statute does not constitute discrimination under Article 14.

---