Deeming provisions in repeal law preserve revision remedies where pending revenue proceedings continue under the successor enactment.

After repeal of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950, pending revenue-initiated revisional proceedings were treated as proceedings under the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 because section 99 deemed departmental action under the repealed Act to have been taken under the new Act. The Deputy Commissioner's order in those continuing proceedings was therefore regarded as an order under section 75 of the 1991 Act, making revision by the Commissioner under section 77 available to the assessee. Section 99(4) governed how such pending matters were to be decided, but did not restrict the appellate or revisional forum. The refusal to entertain the revisions was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether, after the repeal of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950 by the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991, the assessee's revision under section 77 against an order passed in revisional proceedings initiated under the 1950 Act was maintainable, or whether the remedy was confined to reference under section 60 of the 1950 Act.

Analysis: Section 99 of the 1991 Act preserves rights and liabilities under the repealed Act, but deems departmental actions taken under the 1950 Act, including notices issued in revision, to have been taken under the 1991 Act as if that Act were in force on the date of such action. Pending proceedings initiated by the Revenue thus continue under the corresponding machinery of the new Act. The order made by the Deputy Commissioner in the continuing revisional proceedings was therefore to be treated as an order under section 75 of the 1991 Act, which is expressly revisable by the Commissioner on the assessee's application under section 77. Section 99(4) regulates the manner in which pending proceedings are to be decided, but does not alter the forum or transferability created by the proviso to section 99(1) and sub-section (2).

Conclusion: The revision petitions were maintainable under section 77 of the 1991 Act, and the Commissioner's refusal to entertain them was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The orders refusing revision were quashed and the Commissioner was required to hear the revisions under the 1991 Act and decide them on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a repealing statute contains a deeming provision transferring departmental action to the successor enactment, a pending revenue-initiated proceeding must be treated as proceeding under the new Act, and the remedy provided by that Act becomes available to the assessee notwithstanding the earlier statute's repeal.

---