https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751854 Substituted Rule 19 governed penalty for excess liquor loss because substitution ordinarily replaces the earlier rule, and the amended provision reduced the penalty to an amount not exceeding the duty payable. The court held that, in the absence of any express saving clause continuing the harsher pre-amendment rule for pending matters, the substituted provision applied to proceedings initiated after substitution. It further held that the Madhya Pradesh General Clauses Act did not preserve the repealed rule to sustain the higher penalty, since applying the amended rule to pending proceedings was consistent with the legislative intent to rationalise penalty and was not barred by Article 20(1). en-us Fri, 19 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 27 Apr 2024 06:56:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751854 Substituted Rule 19 governed penalty for excess liquor loss because substitution ordinarily replaces the earlier rule, and the amended provision reduced the penalty to an amount not exceeding the duty payable. The court held that, in the absence of any express saving clause continuing the harsher pre-amendment rule for pending matters, the substituted provision applied to proceedings initiated after substitution. It further held that the Madhya Pradesh General Clauses Act did not preserve the repealed rule to sustain the higher penalty, since applying the amended rule to pending proceedings was consistent with the legislative intent to rationalise penalty and was not barred by Article 20(1). Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 19 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751854