Saving clause protects pre-amendment revision notices; penalty under incorrect-return provision must be re-quantified after appellate relief.

A pre-amendment suo motu revision notice signed by the Joint Commissioner before 1 April 1998 was treated as a pending proceeding protected by the saving clause in section 14 of Act 60 of 1997, so the revision was not void for lack of jurisdiction. On penalty, section 12(3)(b) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act applies to an incorrect or incomplete return and permits levy where the disputed claim is unsupported. The penalty was therefore attracted, but the quantification had to be redone after giving effect to the partial appellate relief and limiting the levy to the surviving taxable turnover.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the suo motu revisional proceedings initiated by the Joint Commissioner before the amendment to section 34 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act were protected by the saving clause in section 14 of Act 60 of 1997; (ii) Whether penalty under section 12(3)(b) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act was attracted and, if so, whether it was properly quantified.

Issue (i): Whether the suo motu revisional proceedings initiated by the Joint Commissioner before the amendment to section 34 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act were protected by the saving clause in section 14 of Act 60 of 1997.

Analysis: The amended provision withdrew revisional power over orders of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, but the saving clause preserved proceedings initiated and pending before the commencement of the amendment. The notice initiating revision had been signed by the Joint Commissioner on 31.03.1998, before the amendment came into force on 01.04.1998. Service of the notice later did not alter the fact that the proceeding had already been initiated and was pending on the relevant date.

Conclusion: The revisional proceedings were validly saved by section 14 of Act 60 of 1997 and were not void for want of jurisdiction.

Issue (ii): Whether penalty under section 12(3)(b) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act was attracted and, if so, whether it was properly quantified.

Analysis: Penalty under section 12(3)(b) is attracted where the return is incorrect or incomplete, and the provision does not confer discretion to ignore the statutory levy merely because the turnover appears in the books. The assessee's claim relating to inter-State purchases was found to be unsupported and bogus in respect of the disputed turnover. However, the revisional order restored the penalty without dealing with the correct quantum after the partial relief granted by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, so the penalty required reworking on the basis of the surviving turnover alone.

Conclusion: Penalty was attracted, but the existing levy was set aside for fresh quantification in accordance with the appellate relief.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to jurisdiction failed, the penalty issue succeeded only to the limited extent of re-quantification, and the revision was disposed of without costs.

Ratio Decidendi: A revision notice signed and initiated before the effective date of an amending provision remains a pending proceeding protected by the saving clause, and penalty for an incorrect or incomplete return must be levied and quantified in accordance with the statutory scheme and the surviving taxable turnover.

---