Retrospective repeal clarification preserves accrued toddy tax liabilities and does not infringe trade freedom claims.

A retrospective amendment to the Karnataka General Clauses Act expanded "repeal" to include omission and deletion, so section 6 continued to preserve liabilities already accrued under the earlier tax regime. On that basis, tax on toddy sales remained enforceable for the relevant period despite the deletion of the schedule entry and its transfer to another schedule. The trade-freedom challenge under Articles 19 and 301 failed because the amendment did not bar the business itself; it only preserved the Revenue's right to collect tax already incurred. Trade in intoxicants was also noted not to be a fundamental right, so the validity of the amendment and the assessment stood.

---

---

Issues: Whether the amendment to clause (32)(a) of section 3 of the Karnataka General Clauses Act, 1899, was invalid for want of Presidential assent and whether it infringed the petitioner's right to carry on trade under Articles 19 and 301 of the Constitution of India, thereby defeating the tax liability arising from the sale of toddy.

Analysis: The sale of toddy was taxable under section 5(3)(a) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, read with item 82 of the Second Schedule as it then stood, and the later deletion of that item and its transfer to the Fifth Schedule did not extinguish liability already incurred for the relevant period. The amendment to the General Clauses Act merely expanded the meaning of "repeal" to include omission and deletion, with retrospective effect from 1 November 1956, so that section 6 continued to protect liabilities accrued under the earlier regime. The challenge based on Article 301 failed because the amendment did not prevent the petitioner from carrying on the toddy business; it only preserved the Revenue's right to collect tax already collected from consumers. The contention based on trade freedom was also untenable because trade in intoxicants is not a fundamental right.

Conclusion: The amendment was held valid and the petitioner's challenge to the assessment failed; the tax liability remained enforceable in favour of the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was dismissed, and the assessment and consequential tax liability were left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A retrospective statutory clarification that omission and deletion amount to repeal does not violate trade freedoms where it merely preserves accrued tax liabilities and does not prevent the continued carrying on of the trade.

---