Saving clause protects prescribed challan forms, while a stock transfer assessment needs a clear finding of sale.

Rule 15(6) prescribing Form X for the challan under section 30(4)(b) was upheld because the saving clause in section 59(2) preserved pre-existing rules and notifications not inconsistent with the new Act, so the challenge to the form failed. By contrast, an assessment treating transfer of coal between collieries as a sale under section 17 could not stand where the order lacked a clear finding of sale and was internally inconsistent. The assessment was set aside and remanded for fresh adjudication after examination of the records and hearing the assessee.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether rule 15(6) of the Bihar Sales Tax Rules, 1983, in prescribing Form X for the challan referred to in section 30(4)(b) of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981, was ultra vires; (ii) Whether the assessment treating transfer of coal from one colliery to another as a sale liable to tax under section 17 of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 could stand.

Issue (i): Whether rule 15(6) of the Bihar Sales Tax Rules, 1983, in prescribing Form X for the challan referred to in section 30(4)(b) of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981, was ultra vires.

Analysis: Section 30(4)(b) required a challan for transfer of goods otherwise than by sale in the form laid down by the Commissioner by notification. The challenge to Form X was met by the saving provision in section 59(2) of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981, which preserved rules, orders, notifications and other things done under the repealed law so far as they were not inconsistent with the new Act until modified, superseded or cancelled. On that basis, the prescribed form was treated as protected from attack.

Conclusion: The challenge to the validity of Form X and rule 15(6) did not succeed.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessment treating transfer of coal from one colliery to another as a sale liable to tax under section 17 of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 could stand.

Analysis: The assessment order was found to be internally inconsistent and did not record a clear finding that there had been a sale. The description of the petitioner's business in the registration certificate was not treated as decisive of the taxability question. As the factual basis for treating the stock transfer as a sale was unclear, the assessment could not be sustained without fresh examination of records and a specific finding on sale.

Conclusion: The assessment order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the assessing authority for fresh adjudication after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.

Final Conclusion: The writ applications succeeded only to the extent that the assessment orders were quashed and remanded, while the challenge to the prescribed challan form was not accepted.

Ratio Decidendi: A tax assessment treating an inter-unit transfer as a sale cannot be sustained unless the authority records a clear and specific finding on the existence of a sale, and a saving clause may protect pre-existing forms or rules from challenge so long as they are not inconsistent with the new enactment.

---