Page 42 - GSTL_2nd July 2020 _Vol 38_Part 1

J16 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 38
14. From the above propositions of law as regards the savings of a provision
of a repealed Act what is discernible is that
(i) when the repeal and saving provision in the later enactment specifically
provides that all such proceedings shall continue as if the repealed enactment
is still in force, in such event the proceedings so initiated under the repealed
enactment would continue to survive and the same be brought to its logical
end by following and subjecting it to all such procedures like appeal, revi-
sion, etc., as provided in the repealed enactment.
(ii) In the event, such repeal and saving provision in the later enactment is
not provided, Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 would prevail and in
respect of the State of Assam, the provisions of Section 26 of the Assam Gen-
eral Clauses Act, 1915 would also be applicable and all such rights and liabili-
ties that may have accrued to either of the parties shall continue as if the re-
pealed enactment is still in force and there is no such repeal by the later en-
actment.
(iii) Unless a different intention appears and there are sufficient indications,
either express or implied, in the later enactment designed to completely oblit-
erate the earlier state of the law, any legal proceeding can be instituted and
continued in respect of any matter pending under the repealed Act as if that
Act was in force at the time of the repeal. Any right which have accrued under
the repealed Act are saved unless they are expressly taken away by the later enact-
ment.
(Emphasis supplied)
Apart from the above judgment, in plethora of decisions it is held that a right ac-
crued to the assessee on the date when it paid tax on the raw materials or the in-
puts and that right would continue until the facility available thereto gets worked
out or until those goods existed. The reason is as per Article 14 of the Constitution,
the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all Courts within the territory
of India. Therefore, the previous decisions are to be followed as precedents for the
sake of attaining certainty, consistency, continuity and uniformity in law as is con-
templated by Articles 14 and 141 of the Constitution.
The object and purpose of the transitional arrangements made under
Section 140 of the CGST Act, requires to be achieved to its logical end. The said
section is a complete Code in itself and the substantive right conferred by the Act
cannot be curtailed. The purpose of the law could not be taking away with one
hand what the policy has given with the other.
Once the input/input services are availed by a manufacturer and con-
sumed in the manufacture of the final product and if the manufacturer has valid
duty paying documents then indefeasible and vested right is accrued in favour of
assessee. Assessee’s right to claim input tax credit arises from Rule 3 of Cenvat
Credit Rules, 2004 of the erstwhile tax regime. Merely because the Cenvat credit
was not shown in the Returns filed under earlier regime is discriminatory to the
extent providing for the lapsing of input tax credit. The input tax credit is as
good as tax paid by the assessee and a valid claim of input tax credit under the
GST Act creates an indefeasible right in favour of the taxable person. It is not le-
gal to take away the vested right of the assessee without there being any justifia-
ble reason.
[Continued on page J23]

GST LAW TIMES  2nd July 2020  42