Repeal and savings provisions preserve substantive tax rights, but not an earlier procedural forum when a new appeal route exists.

Repeal and savings provisions preserve substantive rights and liabilities for pre-01 April 2005 tax periods, but they do not preserve an earlier procedural forum where the later statute provides a new appellate route. Section 106(4) of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 was read as protecting accrued tax rights and liabilities, not as requiring continued use of the reference procedure under Section 45 of the repealed Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975. The obligation to obtain a statement of case from the Tribunal was treated as procedural, so direct appeals under Section 81 of the 2004 Act were maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether appeals arising from pre-01 April 2005 tax periods under the repealed Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 were required to follow the reference procedure under Section 45 of that Act, or could be maintained directly under Section 81 of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 despite Section 106(4) of the latter Act.

Analysis: The statutory scheme preserved accrued rights and liabilities on repeal, but the manner of approaching the High Court remained a matter of forum and procedure. The right of appeal against the Tribunal's order was not extinguished by the repeal of the earlier enactment; only the forum and procedure were altered. Section 106(4) of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 was construed as a saving provision directed to substantive rights and liabilities relating to pre-01 April 2005 periods, not as a mandate to continue the old reference procedure under Section 45 of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975. The obligation to seek a statement of case from the Tribunal was treated as procedural and not as an accrued or incurred liability. The repeal and savings framework, read with the principle underlying Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, therefore did not compel the old procedure.

Conclusion: The preliminary objection was rejected and the direct appeals under Section 81 of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 were held maintainable.

Ratio Decidendi: A repeal and savings clause preserves substantive rights and liabilities, but does not preserve an earlier procedural forum when the later statute expressly provides a new appellate mechanism for the same substantive remedy.

---