Saving clause preserves pre-repeal tax proceedings and sustains pre-assessment notices despite repeal-based jurisdiction challenge.

Pre-repeal tax proceedings for earlier periods were preserved by the saving provision in the TNVAT Act, 2006, so pre-assessment notices issued after repeal of the TNGST Act, 1959 remained valid. The absence of prior concurrence of the Deputy Commissioner under the earlier TNGST Rules did not invalidate the notices, because they were only steps in the assessment process and the new enactment did not retain that procedural requirement. The jurisdictional challenge therefore failed, while the assessee was still permitted to file replies and raise objections before the assessing authority, which was to decide the matter according to law.

---

---

Issues: Whether pre-assessment notices issued after repeal of the TNGST Act, 1959, but relating to earlier periods, were sustainable under the saving provision of the TNVAT Act, 2006, and whether absence of prior concurrence of the Deputy Commissioner rendered the notices without jurisdiction.

Analysis: The proceedings had been initiated under the repealed TNGST regime on account of non-filing of returns and non-compliance with notices for production of records. Section 88(3) of the TNVAT Act, 2006 saved pending proceedings and also permitted levy, assessment and collection of tax for pre-commencement periods as if the new Act had been in force. Under the earlier TNGST Rules, concurrence of the Deputy Commissioner was required before final best judgment assessment in specified cases, but the notices in question were only steps in the assessment process. After repeal and substitution, the new enactment did not contain the same concurrence requirement, and the pending action was treated as continuing under the saving clause.

Conclusion: The impugned notices were held to be validly continued under Section 88(3) of the TNVAT Act, 2006, and the jurisdictional challenge based on Rule 15(6) of the TNGST Rules, 1959 failed.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions did not succeed on merits, but the petitioner was permitted to submit replies to the notices and raise all objections before the assessing authority, which was directed to decide the matter in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where proceedings for pre-repeal tax liabilities have already commenced, the saving provision governing repeal and substitution preserves the action and enables continuation under the new enactment, notwithstanding the absence in the new regime of an earlier procedural safeguard applicable to final assessment.

---