HOTEL PRESIDENT SRINAGAR Vs. STATE OF J AND K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As the issues involved in all these writ petitions are common, they are clubbed and taken up together for final hearing and disposal.

(2.) By these writ petitions, the petitioners seek to challenge various demand notices issued by the Assessing Authority, Hotels Tariff Taxation, Srinagar under the Jammu and Kashmir Hotel (Amenities and Services) Tariff Taxation Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as "1980 Act" or " repealed Act") and in some cases, also the recovery proceedings initiated pursuant thereto. One of the main grounds of challenge is that on the repeal of the 1980 Act by The Jammu and Kashmir Hotel (Amenities and Services) Tariff Taxation (Repeal) Act, 1983 (Act XV of 1983) (hereinafter referred to as " the repealing Act") and there being no saving clause in the repealing Act, all pending proceedings under the repealed Act automatically came to an end and no further action can be taken against the petitioners on the basis of such proceedings. The petitioners also seek to challenge the " annual value" of the property assessed by the Assessing Authority and the tax determined on the basis thereof and demand notices issued pursuant thereto. In most of the cases, the petitioners have also filed statutory appeals against the assessments and the demand notices impugned in the writ petitions, which are pending before the appellate authority because of the interim orders in these writ petitions staying all proceedings, including proceedings in appeals.

(3.) We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. The assessments in all these cases have been made by the Assessing Authority under the J&K Hotel (Amenities and Services) Tariff Taxation Act, 1980.That enactment was repealed by The Jammu and Kashmir Hotel (Amenities and Services) Tariff Taxation (Repeal) Act, 1983, (Act No. XV of 1983), which came into force on 19th August, 1983. There is no dispute about the fact that there is no saving clause in the repealing Act of 1983, by which the 1980 Act was repealed. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that in the absence of saving clause in the repealing Act, all pending proceedings under the repealed Act came to an end on the date the repealing Act came into force and no action can be taken on the basis of such pending proceedings. We have carefully considered the above submission. We, however, don t find any force in the same because repeal of the 1980 Act by itself would not extinguish the liability incurred under the repealed Act or bring to an end all pending proceedings under the repealed Act in view of the provisions contained in section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1977 (1920 A.D) which deals with the effect of repeal of an enactment. Section 6 of the General Clauses Act reads :