Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a penalty imposed under the repealed Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948 survived after the enactment of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act in view of the repeal and saving provisions and section 6 of the Uttar Pradesh General Clauses Act, 1904.
Analysis: The repeal of the Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act was not treated as an obliteration of the earlier law. The saving provisions in section 81 of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act preserved actions, liabilities, penalties and remedies arising under the repealed enactment, and section 6 of the Uttar Pradesh General Clauses Act, 1904 continued to operate unless a contrary intention was shown. The later Act also contained a corresponding power to impose penalty, so the liability incurred under the repealed Act remained enforceable. The challenge to the penalty was not examined on merits in view of the available statutory appellate remedy.
Conclusion: The penalty order was held to be legally sustainable notwithstanding repeal of the earlier Act, and the writ petition failed.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute is repealed and simultaneously re-enacted on the same subject with saving provisions, liabilities and penalties already incurred under the repealed enactment remain enforceable unless the later law evinces a contrary intention.