Reassessment on repeal of tax law must follow the successor statute when no reopening notice was issued before repeal.

On repeal and substitution of a taxing statute, an unexercised power to reopen assessment was not treated as an accrued right or liability saved by the repeal clause. The successor Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 was held to govern post-repeal reassessment because it introduced a materially different scheme, including a uniform five-year limitation and completion-based control. Section 100 did not preserve a mere unissued notice under the repealed law, and section 6 of the General Clauses Act did not apply where the new statute showed a different legislative intention. As no reopening notice had been issued before repeal, the reassessment notices had to comply with the new law and were held without jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: Whether reassessment notices issued after the repeal of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 were governed by Section 35 of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003, and whether such notices were invalid because no notice had been issued within the period permitted under the repealed Act.

Analysis: The repealed Sales Tax Act permitted reopening within different limitation periods depending on whether concealment or incorrect returns were alleged. The successor VAT Act preserved reassessment power but materially altered the scheme by prescribing a uniform five-year limit and making completion of reassessment, not merely issuance of notice, the controlling requirement. Section 100 of the VAT Act saved prior rights, liabilities, and actions taken under the repealed law, while Section 6 of the General Clauses Act applied only where no different legislative intention appeared. The Court held that a mere unexercised power to issue a notice under the repealed Act was not an accrued or acquired right, and correspondingly no liability had accrued against the assessee merely because the old limitation period had not yet expired when the repeal took effect. Since no reopening notice had been issued before the repeal, the reassessment proceedings had to conform to the successor statute.

Conclusion: The reassessment notices were governed by Section 35 of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 and were without jurisdiction because they were issued beyond the permissible period under that Act.

Final Conclusion: The reopening proceedings based on the repealed statute could not survive, and the notices for reassessment were quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: On repeal and substitution of a taxing statute, an unexercised statutory power to reopen assessment is not an accrued right or liability saved by the repeal unless the saving clause clearly preserves it; where the successor statute creates a materially different limitation regime, post-repeal reassessment proceedings must conform to the new law.

---