Saving clause preserves earlier entry tax notifications, but non-speaking assessment and revisional orders were quashed for lack of reasoned consideration.

A comprehensive saving clause in the 2007 amendment was construed to preserve earlier entry tax notifications, so the intervening period was not tax-free; the later 2008 notification was treated as clarificatory and the challenge to the continued levy failed. However, the ex parte assessment and revisional orders were found unsustainable because the authorities did not meaningfully consider the assessee's objections or apply their mind to the nature of the goods, so the consequential demand also could not stand. The assessment, revisional order and demand were quashed and the matter remitted for fresh assessment.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the saving clause in Section 2(2) of the 2007 amendment preserved the earlier notifications prescribing the rate of entry tax, so that the period between the amendment and the later notification was not free from tax; (ii) Whether the ex parte assessment order, revisional order and consequential demand could be sustained in the absence of proper consideration of the assessee's objections.

Issue (i): Whether the saving clause in Section 2(2) of the 2007 amendment preserved the earlier notifications prescribing the rate of entry tax, so that the period between the amendment and the later notification was not free from tax.

Analysis: The amendment Act contained a comprehensive saving clause deeming assessments, collections and notifications issued under the principal Act to remain valid and effective notwithstanding the amendment. A saving clause of this width limits the effect of repeal or substitution and continues prior notifications unless a contrary intention is clearly expressed. On that construction, the later notification of 2008 was treated as clarificatory and not as having displaced the earlier notifications.

Conclusion: The earlier notifications continued to operate and the contention that no rate of tax existed for the intervening period was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the ex parte assessment order, revisional order and consequential demand could be sustained in the absence of proper consideration of the assessee's objections.

Analysis: The assessment was made ex parte, the record did not show any meaningful examination of the nature of the goods or of the objections raised by the assessee, and the revisional order was cryptic. In fiscal matters, although liability must be discharged according to law, assessments must still reflect proper application of mind and deal with the material and objections placed before the authority. The impugned orders did not satisfy that standard, so the consequential demands also could not stand.

Conclusion: The assessment order, revisional order and consequential demands were quashed and the matter was remitted for fresh assessment.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the demand succeeded to the extent that the existing assessment and revisional orders were set aside and the assessee obtained a fresh adjudication, while the court also upheld the continued operation of the earlier tax notifications under the saving clause.

Ratio Decidendi: A comprehensively worded saving clause can preserve the operation of prior notifications and assessments despite amendment, but a tax demand cannot survive where the assessment and revisional orders are passed without meaningful consideration of the assessee's objections and without a reasoned application of mind.

---