2005 (8) TMI 623 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Court upholds jurisdiction under repealed APGST Act post VAT Act, dismisses petition. Repeal doesn't affect penalties.

Gammon India Ltd. Versus The Special Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue (CT) Department and others

Gammon India Ltd. Versus The Special Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue (CT) Department and others - [2005] 142 STC 370 (AP), [2005] 1 ... Issues:Challenge to penalty imposed under APGST Act after its repeal by VAT Act.Analysis:1. The petitioner challenged a penalty imposed by the third respondent for purchasing cement against Form-G under the APGST Act, which was repealed by the VAT Act. The petitioner argued that proceedings initiated after the repeal of the APGST Act were illegal. The petitioner relied on section 80 of the VAT Act, which protects actions initiated before the repeal. The petitioner also cited a judgment from the Punjab and Haryana High Court to support the argument that no action can be taken under a repealed act.2. The petitioner had obtained a certificate under the APGST Act allowing the purchase of raw materials at a concessional tax rate. However, during the assessment year 2004-05, the petitioner purchased cement using 'G' declaration forms. The third respondent issued a penalty notice, leading to the petitioner's objections and subsequent penalty imposition. The petitioner contended that the actions taken by the third respondent under the repealed APGST Act were without jurisdiction post the introduction of the VAT Act.3. Section 80 of the VAT Act deals with the repeal of the APGST Act and provides for the transfer and disposal of pending applications or proceedings. It also includes provisions from the Andhra Pradesh General Clauses Act, 1891 to ensure the continuity of rights and liabilities under the repealed act. The court referred to precedents to emphasize the applicability of these provisions even in cases of repeal followed by fresh legislation.4. The court highlighted that the repeal of the APGST Act did not affect obligations, liabilities, penalties, or legal proceedings incurred under the old act. Section 8 of the A.P. General Clauses Act, made applicable by section 80(3) of the VAT Act, ensured that penalty proceedings could be initiated under the repealed APGST Act even after the introduction of the VAT Act. The court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing that the jurisdiction issue was the sole matter decided, leaving other raised questions for consideration in the appeal before the fourth respondent.In conclusion, the court upheld the jurisdiction of the third respondent to initiate penalty proceedings under the repealed APGST Act post the enactment of the VAT Act, dismissing the writ petition.