TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (11) TMI 154
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erein (Amendment and Validation) Act,2008 (Act 13 of 2008) (hereinafter referred to as the ' Validating Act, 2008') (Annexure 5) arbitrary, unfair and amounting to overreaching the judgment of the Hon'ble Court as reported in 2008 BRLJ-239 (M/s United Spirit Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar & ors (Annexure-4) read with judgment reported in 2007(1) PLJR 502 (M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & anr. Vs. State of Bihar & ors), (M/s Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd Vs. State of Bihar & ors) (Annexure-2) and therefore liable to be struck down. iii) To issue an appropriate writ/order/ direction in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the ex-parte assessment order and demand notice dated 25.10.2020 passed by the respondent the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Gopalganj Circle, Gopalganj (Annexure-8 series) whereby and whereunder Entry Tax liability of the petitioner has been computed at Rs. 1,27,38,086.00 and after allowing deduction of payment of Entry Tax, a net demand of Rs. 99,33,576.00- for the period 1.4.2007 to 31.3.2008 has been raised. iv) To issue an appropriate writ/order/ direction in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the order dated 30.9.2011 passed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....effect from August 29, 2006. Certain goods were included for the purposes of incidence of taxation. 5. We also notice that under the principal Act, certain Notifications were introduced from time to time prescribing the rate of tax for certain goods in the schedule. We are concerned, more specifically with the Notifications being; SO 92 dated July 25, 2001; SO 159 dated August 22, 2003; SO 99 dated July 22, 2006; and SO 95 dated July 31, 2008. 6. It is the argument of the petitioner that the schedule under the amendment Act, 2007 wholly substituted the schedule under the principal Act, which also meant that all notifications prescribing rate of tax for the scheduled goods stood repealed. Since the next notification after the amendment Act, for prescribing rates of tax was SO 95 dated July 31, 2008, the period between August 29, 2006 (coming into force of the amendment Act), and SO 95 dated July 31, 2008, there existed no applicable rate of tax. 7. We do not agree with this argument, more so because our attention was brought to the savings clause in the amendment Act, 2007, which read as follows: "2.(2) Any assessment, collection, adjustment, reduction or computation mad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a contrary intention evinced by the repealing Act. It depends upon the repealing provisions what it keeps alive and what it intends to destroy when repeal and saving clause is comprehensively worded, then the provisions of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act are not applicable." 12. In the case of Milkfood Ltd v. GMC Ice Cream (P) Ltd (2004) 7 SCC 288 reiterated by a constitution bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal(supra), it was observed that the Court is to interpret the repeal and savings clause in such a manner so as to give a pragmatic and purposive meaning thereto. 13. It is clear to us that in the instant case, the savings clause, i.e. Section 2 sub-section (2) of the amendment Act, 2007, explicitly ensures that the notifications issued pursuant to the principal Act continue to have force. 14. In our considered view, SO 95 dated July 31, 2008 which prescribes that the said Notifications were to come into force with effect from April 1, 2008 is merely clarificatory in nature and in any event would not supersede or substitute the earlier Notifications, i.e. SO 92, SO 159; or SO 99. 15. This brings us to the ancillary i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the assessee and was ex parte in nature. We also notice that total demand computed along with the amount of penalty is running into lakhs of rupees and that the petitioner filed a revision application assailing the said order and none of the contentions raised by the petitioner vide his application (Annexure-7) as also placed before the Revisional Authority dealt with. 19. Petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of sugar, processed by vacuum Pan Process. For producing the same, the petitioner has imported certain goods in the shape of hardware, etc. Whether each one of the items, so imported by him, are actually covered in the prescribed schedule or not is something which is not reflective from the orders passed by the Assessing Officer as also Revisional Authority. It is true that petitioner has not placed the entire order passed by the Assessing Officer, but then even from the material which is placed before us, it can be easily gathered and more particularly the order at page-75 placed on record, which is detailed in nature, that the Assessing Officer has specifically not dealt with any one of the objections raised by the petitioner, though the order is....