Revisional remedy survived repeal under fiscal saving provisions, preserving the power to correct assessments under the earlier tax law.

The saving provisions in the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 preserved accrued rights, liabilities and remedies under the repealed U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, and also continued authorisation to exercise revisional powers under Section 10-B. The revisional remedy was treated as part of the statutory fiscal remedy connected with assessment and correction of illegality, not as a power extinguished by repeal. Section 56 of the later Act reinforced that the legislature did not intend to abolish the remedy, and the general saving rule in the U.P. General Clauses Act, 1904 also remained applicable. The revisional remedy under Section 10-B therefore survived the repeal for assessments made under the earlier Act.

---

---

Issues: Whether the revisional power under Section 10-B of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 survived its repeal by the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 and could be exercised in relation to an assessment made under the repealed Act.

Analysis: The saving provision in Section 81 of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 preserved accrued rights, liabilities and remedies under the repealed enactment, while Section 81(3) specifically contemplated continuance of authorization to exercise powers under Section 10-B. Section 81(6) further preserved the general application of Section 6 of the U.P. General Clauses Act, 1904. The revisional power under Section 10-B was an enabling power, but in the context of fiscal legislation it formed part of the statutory remedy connected with assessment and correction of illegality. The later Act also contained a corresponding revisional provision in Section 56, indicating no legislative intention to destroy the remedy. The repeal, therefore, did not extinguish the revenue's revisional remedy in respect of assessments under the earlier Act.

Conclusion: The revisional remedy under Section 10-B survived the repeal, and the contrary view was rejected. The earlier Division Bench rulings were held to state the correct law.

---