TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1961 (12) TMI 72
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ficer on 15th February, 1957. During the pendency of the appeal, Madras Act 1 of 1959 came into operation on 1st April, 1959. The appeal was transferred to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the prescribed appellate authority under the new enactment. By order of the appellate authority the assessee's turnover was reduced to Rs. 6,22,693-13-11. They preferred a further appeal to the Appellate Tribunal disputing a turnover of Rs. 80,744. This turnover related to sales effected by them through Messrs Beardsell and Co. and they claimed that these sales were in the course of export and therefore not within the ambit of the Act. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner has taken the view in regard to these sales that they were local sales assessab....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... expressly saves previous operation of the repealed Act and any right, title, obligation or liability already acquired, accrued, or incurred under the said Act. The newly constituted Appellate Tribunals are clothed with wider and larger powers in the matter of disposal of the appeals than those of the Tribunals that functioned under the old Act. But the appellate power of these new Tribunals cannot be so exercised as to deprive vested rights which had already accrued in favour of the assessee. In this case when the Appellate Assistant Commissioner heard the appeal of the assessee, he could not have enhanced the assessment to his prejudice despite the fact that he had powers of enhancement, conferred upon him by section 31 of Madras Act 1 of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r v, Venkatasubba Rao(1916) 39 Mad. 645., where it was held that the rule of limitation that is in force at the time when a suit is instituted will alone govern the action and that the creation of a new forum for the action to be tried cannot deprive the suitor of the benefit of that rule of limitation. The principle of this decision is that an enactment cannot without the use of express words be given a retrospective operation so as to destroy preexisting vested and substantive rights. We do not think that this decision can in any way help the respondent to urge the ground of immunity from enhancement of assessment by the Appellate Tribunal. The decision reported in Valia Rajah of Edapally v. Commissioner of H.R. and C.E.(1954) 2 M.L.J. 59....