IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.15652 of 2009 Date of decision: 16.8.2010 M/s Idasa India Ltd. -----Petitioner. Vs. State of Punjab and others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:- Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Piyush Kant Jain, Addl.A.G., Punjab. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This writ petition seeks quashing of order of assessment dated 25.8.2009, raising demand of tax. 2. Case of the petitioner is that for the assessment year 2005-06, assessment was made under the provisions of the Punjab Value Added Tax, 2005 (for short, “the Act”) by the Excise and Taxation Officer, Mansa, acting as designated officer under Section 3 of the Act. The petitioner filed C.W.P. No.15931 of 2006, inter-alia, complaining of non-compliance of principles of natural justice and of tampering with officials records. Plea of lack of jurisdiction to act as designated officer was also raised. C.W.P. No.15652 of 2009 The writ petition was disposed of on 8.12.2006, after recording a finding that principles of natural justice were violated. Statement was also recorded on behalf of the State that the assessment in question shall be transferred to a different officer. Accordingly, the officer was changed and assessment was made again by a different officer vide impugned order. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that though statutory appeal against order of assessment was filed and is pending, this petition has been filed only on a jurisdictional issue that the officer making the assessment was not ‘designated officer’ under Section 2(i) read with Section 3(1) of the Act. It is submitted that even though notification dated 31.3.2005 was issued under Section 3 of the Punjab Value Added Tax Ordinance, 2005 (for short, “the Ordinance”), in terms of which the officer who passed the order of assessment was appointed as ‘designated officer’, the said notification no longer survives by virtue of repeal of the Ordinance under Section 94 of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made it clear that apart from issue of jurisdiction, no other issue was being raised in view of pendency of appeal. 4. In the reply filed on behalf of the State, stand taken is that notification issued under the Ordinance survives even after the Act, notwithstanding with the repeal of the Ordinance by virtue of provisions of the Punjab General Clauses Act, 1956 (for short, “the State General Clauses Act”). 2 C.W.P. No.15652 of 2009 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Section 22 of the State General Clauses Act which is pari-materia with Section 24 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (the Central Act) provides as under:- “22. Continuation of orders, etc. issued under enactments repealed and re-enacted. Where any Punjab Act is repealed and re-enacted with or without modification, then, unless it is otherwise expressly provided, any [appointment, notification], order scheme, rule, form or bye-law, [made or] issued under the repealed Act, shall so far as it is not inconsistent with the provisions re-enacted, continue in force, and be deemed to have been [made or] issued under the provisions so re-enacted, unless and until it is superseded by any [appointment notification], order, scheme, rule, form or bye-law [made or] issued by under the Provisions so re-enacted.” 7. A perusal of above, clearly shows that any notification issued under a repealed Act, which is not inconsistent with re- enacted provisions, shall be deemed to have been issued under the re-enacted provisions. Thus, the notification already issued has to be treated to have been issued under the re-enacted provisions, notwithstanding repeal of the Ordinance. Reference may also be made to judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gajraj Singh etc. v. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal & others etc. AIR 1997 SC 412, Commissioner of Income Tax, 3 C.W.P. No.15652 of 2009 Bangalore v. Venkateswara Hatcheries (P) Ltd. AIR 1999 SC 1225 and State of Punjab v. Mohar Singh Pratap Singh AIR 1955 SC 84. 8. In view of above, there is no merit in the contention that the notification, appointing designated officers lapsed after the Ordinance was re-enacted in the form of the Act. 9. The petition is dismissed. 10. It is made clear that this order will not affect the merits of the contentions raised in the appeal which is said to be pending before the appellate authority. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE August 16, 2010 ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) ashwani JUDGE 4