IMPORTANT POINT
In case of a repeal of a provision or statute followed by re-enactment, if the earlier provision are saved, provisions of Punjab General Clauses Act, 1898 will apply. If reenactment does away with earlier provisions or destroys them, then Provisions of Act 1898 will not apply.

JUDGMENT

Navin Sinha, J.

The common question of law arising for consideration in this batch of appeals is whether the exercise of revisional power under Section 40 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act of 1973') after its repeal on 1.4.2003, by the Haryana Value Added Tax, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act of 2003'), is sustainable. The appeals have, therefore, been heard together and are being disposed by a common order.

2. The facts, for better appreciation, shall be culled out from Civil Appeal Nos.10792-10794 of 2011. The sales tax assessment of the respondent, for the assessment year 1998-99, was completed and refund ordered on 12.05.2000, under the Act of 1973. Subsequently, the former Act was repealed by the Act of 2003 on 01.04.2003. A show cause notice was issued to the respondent on 07.06.2004 regarding the refund ordered earlier, in exercise of suo-moto revisional powers under Section 40 of the Act of 1973. By order dated 12.07.2004, the respondent was held liable for recovery of Rs. 65,35,632/-.

3. The order for recovery having been challenged by the respondent before the High Court, it was held that resort to Section 40 of the Act of 1973, after coming into force of the new Act on 01.04.2003 was unsustainable, as the repeal and saving clause in Section 61 of the Act of 2003, saved only pending proceedings under the former. Since there were no proceedings pending against the respondent under the repealed Act, on the relevant date, the proceedings thereunder could not be sustained or justified by reference to Section 4 of the Punjab General Clauses Act, 1898.

4. Sh. Manish Paliwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Haryana, submitted that the refund having been wrongly obtained, resort to suo-moto revision under Section 40 of the Act of 1973, exercised within the limitation of five years, was justified. The wrong benefit of refund clearly fell within the meaning of the expression privilege, obligation or liability acquired or incurred under the repealed Act, and was therefore saved by Section 4 of the Punjab General Clauses Act, 1898. Relying on Raymond Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors., 2007(2) R.C.R.(Civil) 426 : (2007) 3 SCC 79, it was contended that the revisional power conferred on the revenue in a fiscal legislation should not be construed as a stand-alone provision, but as a provision intended to enable the revisional authority to ensure that the assessment had been carried out in accordance with law. The power vested in the revisional authority to correct an error in assessment has a direct nexus with the order of assessment giving finality to the order of the assessing authority. There is a corresponding obligation and responsibility on the assessee also, and when it is found that the assessment was otherwise then in accordance with law, the power of the revisional authority cannot be restricted in revenue and fiscal matters.

5. Reliance was further placed on Swastik Oil Mills Ltd v. H.B. Munshi, Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Bombay, 1968 (2) SCR 492, and Gammon India Ltd. v. Special Chief Secretary and Ors., (2006) 3 SCC 354, in support of the submission that resort to Section 40 of the Act of 1973 was saved by reason of Section 4 of the Punjab General Clauses Act, 1898.

6. Sh. P.H. Parekh, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, urged that the impugned order called for no interference. The repeal and saving clause in Section 61 of the Act of 2003 exclusively saved pending proceedings only. The application of the Punjab General Clauses Act, 1898, therefore, stood excluded by the expression of a different intention in the repealing Act. The legislature subsequently amended Section 61 of the Act of 2003, suitably on 02.04.2010.

7. At the outset, it is appropriate to set out the unamended and amended provisio