https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=129018 A pending revision under the repealed Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939 could not be recharacterised as an appeal under section 61(2) of the 1959 Act, because the saving provision required transfer only to the forum competent to deal with that proceeding under the new law; the prior revisional remedy was treated as having lapsed, and the Board of Revenue's revisional power was not barred. Sales of rice delivered outside Madras for consumption in Travancore were protected by the constitutional Explanation to Article 286(1)(a) when supported by proof, so turnover covered by affidavits was exempt, while the balance remained taxable for want of satisfactory evidence. en-us Fri, 13 Sep 1963 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 16 Apr 2013 14:46:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=129018 A pending revision under the repealed Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939 could not be recharacterised as an appeal under section 61(2) of the 1959 Act, because the saving provision required transfer only to the forum competent to deal with that proceeding under the new law; the prior revisional remedy was treated as having lapsed, and the Board of Revenue's revisional power was not barred. Sales of rice delivered outside Madras for consumption in Travancore were protected by the constitutional Explanation to Article 286(1)(a) when supported by proof, so turnover covered by affidavits was exempt, while the balance remained taxable for want of satisfactory evidence. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 13 Sep 1963 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=129018