Saving clauses preserved penalty proceedings after omission, and notice citing the old provision remained effective on adequate particulars.

Omission of section 4-B(6) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act did not extinguish penalty proceedings already initiated, because accrued liability and penalty were preserved by the saving effect of sections 6(c) and 6(d) of the General Clauses Act and by section 41 of the amending Act. A notice citing the omitted provision was not invalid where it gave sufficient particulars and the substituted section 4-B(5) covered the same field. Sale of notified rice outside Uttar Pradesh in breach of recognition-certificate conditions sustained penalty, and absence of form III-B did not defeat the substantive liability. The court also held that bona fide belief or mens rea was immaterial and that the penalty quantum objection was not entertained.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether penalty proceedings initiated under the omitted section 4-B(6) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 survived the omission in view of the saving provisions; (ii) whether a notice issued mentioning section 4-B(6) could sustain penalty after substitution of section 4-B(5); (iii) whether the assessee's sale of rice outside Uttar Pradesh and the alleged non-issuance of form III-B barred penalty under the recognition-certificate scheme; and (iv) whether absence of bona fide or mens rea and the challenge to the quantum of penalty affected the levy.

Issue (i): whether penalty proceedings initiated under the omitted section 4-B(6) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 survived the omission in view of the saving provisions.

Analysis: The omission of section 4-B(6) was treated as a partial repeal in the statutory context, and the Court applied the saving effect of section 6(c) and section 6(d) of the U.P. General Clauses Act, 1904. The liability and penalty already incurred before omission were held to survive, and section 41 of U.P. Act No. 31 of 1995 was read as not extinguishing such accrued liabilities. The substitution of section 4-B(5), containing similar terms, reinforced the conclusion that the proceedings were not rendered void merely because the old provision had been omitted.

Conclusion: The penalty proceedings were valid and were not without jurisdiction.

Issue (ii): whether a notice issued mentioning section 4-B(6) could sustain penalty after substitution of section 4-B(5).

Analysis: The notice was not treated as invalid merely because it referred to the omitted provision. The Court held that the assessee had been informed of the alleged misconduct with sufficient particulars, and the substituted provision covered substantially the same field. The reference to the wrong provision was treated as a curable defect in the facts of the case and did not deprive the authority of jurisdiction to proceed.

Conclusion: The notice did not vitiate the penalty proceedings.

Issue (iii): whether the assessee's sale of rice outside Uttar Pradesh and the alleged non-issuance of form III-B barred penalty under the recognition-certificate scheme.

Analysis: The Court held that rice was a notified commodity for the relevant period, and section 4-B(6) was concerned with sale or disposal of notified goods in breach of the conditions attached to the recognition certificate. It further held that purchase tax liability arose at the point of purchase, that exemption had been granted on the strength of the recognition certificate, and that violation of the certificate conditions by disposing of the manufactured rice outside the State attracted the statutory penalty mechanism. The absence of form III-B did not displace the substantive liability attracted by the breach of the recognition-certificate conditions.

Conclusion: The assessee remained liable to penalty under the scheme.

Issue (iv): whether absence of bona fide or mens rea and the challenge to the quantum of penalty affected the levy.

Analysis: The Court held that section 4-B(6) did not make penalty dependent on the presence or absence of reasonable cause, and therefore the plea of bona fide belief or mens rea was not material. The contention regarding exact quantification of penalty was not entertained because it had not been raised before the Tribunal.

Conclusion: These objections did not affect the penalty order.

Final Conclusion: The statutory penalty imposed on the assessee was upheld and the revisions failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a liability and penalty have accrued under a provision that is later omitted or partially repealed, the saving effect of the general clauses law preserves the proceedings unless the legislature manifests a contrary intention; a notice is not invalid merely because it cites the wrong but substantially corresponding provision when the assessee has been adequately apprised of the charge.

---