Saving clause preserves revisional power under repealed VAT law, while plastic packing goods fell outside the concessional entry.

Revisional proceedings under the repealed KVAT Act were preserved by the saving clause, so a suo motu revision initiated under section 94(7) was not invalid merely because the department had moved to the GST regime or the notice described the officer as Commissioner of State Taxes. The court treated the description as a bona fide error and upheld the authority's continuing power. On classification, plastic containers, trays and bowls were held not to fall within Entry 174 of the Third Schedule merely by implication from exclusions in other entries; as they did not squarely match the concessional entry, they were taxable under the residuary entry at the higher rate.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the suo motu revision initiated under section 94(7) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 was without jurisdiction after repeal of the KVAT Act and because the notice/order described the officer as Commissioner of State Taxes; (ii) whether plastic containers, trays and bowls manufactured by the appellant were taxable under Entry 174 of List A of the Third Schedule to the KVAT Act at 5% or were liable to tax under the residuary entry at the higher rate.

Issue (i): Whether the suo motu revision initiated under section 94(7) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 was without jurisdiction after repeal of the KVAT Act and because the notice/order described the officer as Commissioner of State Taxes.

Analysis: The officer who acted under the old regime continued to be the same notified authority, and the description of the department under the new GST regime was treated as a bona fide mistake. The repeal clause preserved rights, liabilities, obligations and proceedings already initiated under the repealed enactment. The revisional power under section 94(7) and the notification designating the Commissioner were therefore not extinguished by repeal, and the appellant could not defeat the continuation of proceedings on that basis.

Conclusion: The jurisdictional objection was rejected and the revision was held valid.

Issue (ii): Whether plastic containers, trays and bowls manufactured by the appellant were taxable under Entry 174 of List A of the Third Schedule to the KVAT Act at 5% or were liable to tax under the residuary entry at the higher rate.

Analysis: Entry 174 was construed in the light of the structure of the KVAT schedules and the HSN alignment used in the statute. The court held that the general heading of Entry 174 was not aligned to the eight-digit HSN code covering the appellant's goods, and the specific articles in question were neither covered by the higher-rate entries in section 6(1)(a) nor by the sub-entry relating to plastic tins, bags and covers. The exclusion of certain goods from section 6(1)(a) did not mean that all other packing materials automatically fell within Entry 174. The appellant's goods were therefore not within the concessional entry and fell in the residuary category.

Conclusion: The goods were not entitled to the 5% rate under Entry 174 and were correctly taxed under the residuary entry.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on both jurisdiction and classification, and the impugned revisional order was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: On repeal of a taxing statute, pending revisional proceedings and the authority's powers are preserved by the saving clause, and a commodity is entitled to concessional treatment only when it squarely falls within the specific schedule entry, not by implication from the exclusion of other goods.

---