https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127334 Entry 43 in List III was read as a machinery provision permitting Parliament and the States to legislate for recovery of claims arising outside the State, whether the claims accrued before or after the Constitution. The provision was not confined to post-Constitution claims. The repeal of the earlier Cochin enactment did not extinguish accrued liabilities or pending remedies, because section 6 of the General Clauses Act preserved enforcement of pre-existing rights unless clearly displaced. The absence of an express saving clause in the later recovery law therefore did not bar recovery of liabilities already incurred, and the challenge to the recovery notice failed. en-us Fri, 26 Mar 1954 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 07 Mar 2013 15:28:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127334 Entry 43 in List III was read as a machinery provision permitting Parliament and the States to legislate for recovery of claims arising outside the State, whether the claims accrued before or after the Constitution. The provision was not confined to post-Constitution claims. The repeal of the earlier Cochin enactment did not extinguish accrued liabilities or pending remedies, because section 6 of the General Clauses Act preserved enforcement of pre-existing rights unless clearly displaced. The absence of an express saving clause in the later recovery law therefore did not bar recovery of liabilities already incurred, and the challenge to the recovery notice failed. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 26 Mar 1954 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127334