Saved pending tax proceedings under repeal preserve revision remedy and bar writ maintainability where statutory appeal or revision remains available.

Pending proceedings initiated under the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003 were saved by Section 174(2)(f) of the Assam Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, so the repeal did not extinguish a show-cause-based proceeding already in motion when the new Act commenced. The provision preserved appeal, revision, review and reference proceedings and required them to continue under the repealed Act as if the new Act had not come into force. On that basis, the petitioner could still pursue the statutory revision remedy under Section 81 of the 2003 Act, and the availability of that specific remedy weighed against writ jurisdiction. The writ petition was therefore held not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the statutory remedy of revision under the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003, and whether the proceeding initiated under the repealed enactment survived by virtue of Section 174(2)(f) of the Assam Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: The proceeding against the petitioner had commenced with the show-cause notice issued under the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003 and was pending when the Assam Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 came into force. Section 174(2)(f) expressly saved pending proceedings, including appeal, revision, review or reference, and provided that such proceedings would continue under the repealed Act as if the new Act had not come into force. Applying the settled principles governing repeal and re-enactment, the Court held that the earlier proceeding did not lapse merely because the original assessment proceedings had reached the appellate stage. Since the statutory framework continued to preserve the proceeding, the petitioner could still pursue the revision remedy under Section 81 of the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003. In any event, the availability of that specific statutory remedy also weighed against the maintainability of the writ petition.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and the objection based on the availability of revision was accepted.

---