ORDER Dixit, C.J. 1. By this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner-firm seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing the proceedings initiated against it by the respondent No.1, the Regional Assistant Commissioner of Sales-tax, Indore, for assessment of Sales-tax for the year 1957-58. The applicant also prays that the said respondent be prohibited by a direction from making any assessment against it for the year 1957-58. 2. The matter arises thus. The petitioner is a partnership firm carrying on the cloth-business at Indore. It was registered as a "dealer" under the Madhya Bharat Sales-tax, Act, 1950, (hereinafter called the Madhya Bharat Act). It is also registered as a "dealer" under the Madhya Pradesh General Sales-tax Act, 1958, (hereinafter referred to as the Madhya Pradesh Act). For the four quarters falling in the year 1957-58, the petitioner submitted the return of its transactions as required under the Madhya Bharat Act and paid a total amount of Rs. 19,243.71 as tax. It seems that no assessment of sales-tax was made against the firm under the Madhya Bharat Act for a long time and even until 1st April 1959 when the Madhya Pradesh Act came into force repealing the Madhya Bharat Act. More then five years after the coming into force of the Madhya Pradesh Act, a notice was issued by the Regional Assistant Commissioner of Sales-tax, Indore, to the petitioner on 8th January 1965 calling upon it to produce all the books of accounts for the period from 1st April 1957 to 31st March 1958. 3. In the meantime, a Division Bench of this Court held on 31st March 1964 in Firm Jagmohandas Vijaykumar Vs. The Additional Assistant Commissioner of Sales-tax M.P. No 37 of 1963 Decided on the 31st March 1961 that sections 8 and 10 of the Madhya Bharat Act had to be read together and assessments under that Act had to be made in cases in which returns have been filed within three years from the close of the period for which it was proposed to make assessment, and that thereafter the assessment proceedings could not be continued. After the decision in the case of the Firm Jagmohandas Vijaykumar (supra) was pronounced, the Madhya Pradesh General Sales-tax (Second Amendment) Act, 1964, (hereinafter called the amending Act), was enacted. After the decision in the case of the Firm Jagmohandas Vijaykumar (supra) was pronounced, the Madhya Pradesh General Sales-tax (Second Amendment) Act, 1964, (hereinafter called the amending Act), was enacted. It was published in the Extra-ordinary Gazette on 29th September 1964 and came into force from that date Section 7 of the amending Act inserted in the principal Act, namely, the M.P. General Sales-tax Act, 1958, a new section viz. section 18-A, which is as follows- “18-A. Assessment of tax escaping assessment in respect of the period prior to the commencement of this Act- (1) Where a dealer was registered or licensed under any of the Acts repealed by section 52 and has not been assessed to tax for any period prior to the commencement of this Act, then notwithstanding- (i) any judgment, decree or order of any Court, Tribunal or any other competent authority to the effect that the turnover for that period cannot be assessed to tax on the ground that the assessment has not been made within the period prescribed there for under the relevant provisions of the relevant repealed Act; or (ii) anything contained in section 19 of this Act or in the relevant repealed Act; he shall within five years from the date of the commencement of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales-tax (Second Amendment) Act, 1964, be assessed to tax for that period. (2) Where, before the commencement of this Act, a proceeding for assessment had been initiated or an assessment had been made, for any period prior to such commencement, in respect of a dealer registered or licensed under any of the Acts repealed by section 52, then notwithstanding any judgment; decree or order of any Court, Tribunal, or any other competent authority, such proceeding or assessment shall be and shall always be deemed to have been validly initiated or made, not withstanding that the period laid down for initiation of assessment had already expired and such proceeding or assessment shall not be called in question in any Court or Tribunal, or before any other authority merely on that ground." Section 21 (2) of the amending Act inter alia prescribed that the amendment made by section 7 in the principal Act "shall be deemed to have formed part of the principal Act from the commencement thereof". Thus section 18-A was deemed to have formed part of the Madhya Pradesh Act from 1st April 1959 when that Act came into force. 4. The petitioner-firm raised before the respondent No. 1 the objection that in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Firm Jagmohandas Vijaykumar (supra) no assessment proceedings for the year 1957-58 could be continued against it and no assessment could be made under the Madhya Bharat Act after 1st April 1961; and that section 18-A, read with section 52, of the Madhya Pradesh Act did not in any way revive the liability of the petitioner to the charge of sales-tax which came to an end latest by 1st April 1961 under the Madhya Bharat Act itself. The petitioner sought time from the Regional Assistant Commissioner of sales-tax for filing a petition in this Court for canvassing its objection to the legality of the continuance of assessment proceedings for the year 1957-58. It is in these circumstances that this application has been filed. 5. It was argued by Shri Chitale, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, that under section 52 of the Madhya Pradesh Act, as construed by this Court in Hanumanprasad Vs. Sales-tax Officer 1963 JLJ 456 = 1963 MPLJ 421 and by Supreme Court in its decision dated the 11th October 1966 in Sales-tax Officer Vs. Hanumanprasad 1967 JLJ 5 = 1967 RN 1 affirming the decision of this Court in Hanumanprasad Vs. Sales-tax Officer 1963 JLJ 456 = 1963 MPLJ 421, assessment proceedings against the petitioner-firm for the year 1957-58, that is, in respect of a period prior to the commencement of the Madhya Pradesh Act, were governed by the Madhya Bharat Act; and that according to the decision of this Court in the case or Firm Jagmohandas Vijaykumar (supra) no assessment against the petitioner-firm under the Madhya Bharat Act could be made for the year 1957-58 after 1st April 1961. Learned counsel proceeded to say that the new section 18-A of the Madhya Pradesh Act did not in any way amend sections 8 and 10 of the Madhya Bharat Act so as to permit any assessment being made for the year 1957-58 after 1st April 1961; that even after the insertion of section 18-A in the Madhya Pradesh Act the provisions of sections 8 and 10 of the Madhya Bharat Act continued to be operative in the same way as they did when the case of Firm Jagmohandai Vijaykumar (supra) was decided; that in fact sections 8 and 10 of the Madhya Bharat Act could not be amended in any way after that Act was repealed by section 52 of the Madhya Pradesh Act which came into force on 1st April 1959; and that the Madhya Bharat Act was totally repealed by sub-section (1) of section 52 of the Madhya Pradesh Act, and the proviso to that sub-section kept alive the effect and "previous operation" of the Madhya Bharat Act and not that Act itself. It was further submitted that section 18-A, which formed a part of the Madhya Pradesh Act, could not be invoked against the petitioner for continuing the assessment proceedings for the year 1957-58 as the assessment proceedings for that year were governed not by the Madhya Pradesh Act but by the Madhya Bharat Act. 6. In reply, the learned Advocate-General did not dispute that the assessment for the year 1957-58 had to be under the Madhya Bharat Act. He also did not contest the petitioner's reading of this Court's decision in the case of Firm Jagmohandas Vijaykumar (supra). 6. In reply, the learned Advocate-General did not dispute that the assessment for the year 1957-58 had to be under the Madhya Bharat Act. He also did not contest the petitioner's reading of this Court's decision in the case of Firm Jagmohandas Vijaykumar (supra). It was, however, urged that the Madhya Bharat Act was not totally repealed by sub-section (1) of section 52 of the Madhya Pradesh Act; that it continued to be operative for the limited purposes mentioned in the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 52 of the Madhya Pradesh Act; that sections 8 and 10 of the Madhya Bharat Act could, therefore, be amended even after 1st April 1959; that section 18-A, and the proviso to section 52 (1), of the Madhya Pradesh Act must be read together and, so read, their effect was to amend sections 8 and 10 of the Madhya Bharat Act so as to permit assessments being made under the Madhya Bharat Act even upto a period of five years from the date of the commencement of the amending Act of 1964; and that, therefore, the Regional Assistant Commissioner of Sales-tax, Indore, was acting within his jurisdiction in continuing with the assessment proceedings against the petitioner for the year 1957-58. 7. Before dealing with the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, it is necessary to refer to section 52 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Act. It runs thus- "52. 7. Before dealing with the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, it is necessary to refer to section 52 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Act. It runs thus- "52. Repeal and Savings.-(1) The Central Provinces and Berar Sales-tax Act, 1947, the Madhya Bharat Sales-tax Act, Samvat 2007, the Central Provinces and Berar Sales-tax Act, 1947, as extended to Vindhya Pradesh and Bhopal regions and as in force in those regions immediately before the commencement of this Act, and the Rajasthan Sales-tax Act, 1954, as in force in Sironj region, are hereby repealed; Provided that such repeal shall not affect the previous operation of the said Acts or any right, title, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred there under, and subject thereto, anything done or any action taken (including any appointment, notification, notice, order, rule, form, regulation, certificate or licence) in the exercise of any power conferred by or under the said Acts shall, in so far as it is not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, be deemed to have been done or taken in the exercise of the powers conferred by or under this Act, as if this Act were in force on the date on which such thing was done or action was taken; and all arrears of tax and other amounts due at the commencement of this Act may be recovered as if they had accrued under this Act." The proposition that by the aforesaid provision the Madhya Bharat Act was repealed and the assessment for the year 1957-58, that is, for a period prior to the coming into force on 1st April 1959 of the Madhya Pradesh Act, can be in the present case only under the Madhya Bharat Act cannot now be disputed in view of the decision date d the 11th October 1966 of the Supreme Court in Sales-tax Officer Vs. Hanumanprasad 1967 JLJ 5 = 1967 RN 1. In that case, the Supreme Court stated the effect of section 52 (1) thus:- "It was under section 52 of the new Act that the repealed Act was repealed, and that section itself, under the proviso, laid down that such repeal shall not affect the previous operation of the said Act or any right, title, obligation or liability already acquired, accrued or incurred there under. There was also the further addition that subject thereto, anything done or any action taken (including any appointment, notification, notice, order, rule, form, regulation, certificate or licence) in the exercise of any power conferred by or under the said Act shall, in so far as it is not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, be deemed to have been done or taken in exercise of the powers conferred by or under this Act, as if this Act were in force on the date on which such thing was done or action was taken. In view of this proviso it has to be held that when this new Act came into force on 1st April 1959, all rights, title, obligation or liability already, acquired accrued or incurred under the repealed Act by the respondent remained unaffected and intact. The rights and liabilities, which had been acquired or incurred under the repealed Act, included the right or liability to be assessed in accordance with the provisions of the repealed Act in respect of turnover of sales effected during the time when that Act was in force. The repealed Act laid down what turnover was taxable, how it was to be computed, and at what rate the tax was to be charged. These provisions clearly created rights as well as liabilities of dealers. Those rights and liabilities were thus preserved by section 52 of the new Act." The assessment for the year in question being governed by the Madhya Bharat Act, the limitation of three years for the completion of assessment under sections 8 and 10 of the Madhya Bharat Act as held by this Court in the case of Firm Jagmohandas Vijaykumar (supra) would apply, unless it is held that section 18-A by itself, or read with section 52 (1), has the effect of amending sections 8 and 10 of the Madhya Bharat Act so as to make the said provisions of the Madhya Bharat Act read, from the date when that Act was passed, as providing for a period of limitation upto five years from the date of the commencement of the amending Act of 1964 for completion of the assessments there under. That the Legislature is competent to amend any provision of an Act so as to make it effective in a particular manner from the date the original Act was enacted cannot be doubted. That the Legislature is competent to amend any provision of an Act so as to make it effective in a particular manner from the date the original Act was enacted cannot be doubted. It cannot also be disputed that there cannot be any amendment of an enactment which has been repealed and which is not in existence. If the Act is not in existence, it cannot be amended unless it is first revived. The only manner in which a repealed enactment can be revived is by enacting afresh statute or by enacting a statute expressly saying that the Act is herewith revived. In this connection, it would be pertinent to refer to section 12 of the Madhya Pradesh General Clauses Act, 1957, which lays down that in any Madhya Pradesh Act it shall be necessary for the purpose of reviving, either wholly or partially, any enactment wholly or partially repealed, expressly to state that purpose. 8. The two questions that, therefore, arise for determination are first, whether section 18-A of the Madhya Pradesh Act by itself, or read with section 52 (1) thereof, amends sections 8 2nd 10 of the Madhya Bharat Act so as to get over the effect of this Court's decision in the case of Firm Jagmohandas Vijaykumar (supra) and permit the continuation of assessment proceedings against the petitioner till the expiry of the period specified in section 18-A(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Act; and, secondly, whether there has been a total repeal of the Madhya Bharat Act by section 52 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Act so as to preclude any amendment of the Madhya Bharat Act after the coming into force on 1st April 1959 of the Madhya Pradesh Act by which the Madhya Bharat Act was repealed. 9. In our judgment, the operation of the limitation of three years prescribed by the Madhya Bharat Act for completion of assessment under sections 8 and 10 of that Act, or the effect of this Court's decision in the case of the Firm Jagmohandas Vijaykumar (supra) is in no way affected by the insertion of section 18-A in the Madhya Pradesh Act. That provision is not ex facie a provision amending sections 8 and 10 of the Madhya Bharat Act from the time that Act came into force and substituting a new period of limitation for the period of three year limitation for the completion of assessments under those provisions. It is evident from the Madhya Pradesh General Sales-tax (Second Amendment) Act, 1964, and in particular section 21 (2) thereof, that section 18-A is a part of the Madhya Pradesh Act itself and is not any provision incorporated in the Madhya Bharat Act. Section 18-A is, by section 21 (2) of the amending Act, deemed to have formed part of the Madhya Pradesh Act from 1st April 1959, the date on which the Madhya Pradesh Act came into force. The first sub-section of section 18-A seeks to provide that, as from 1st April 1959, neither any judgment, decree or order of any Court, Tribunal or any other competent authority nor anything contained in section 19 of the Madhya Pradesh Act or in the relevant repealed Act (here the Madhya Bharat Act) shall be an impediment for assessment to Sales-tax, within five years from the date of the commencement of the amending Act, of a dealer who has not been assessed to tax for any period prior to 1st April 1959. The second sub-section attempts to validate inter alia the assessment proceedings initiated or assessments made under the Madhya Bharat Act for a period before the 1st April 1959 even after the expiry of the three years limitation prescribed for completion of assessments under sections 8 and 10 of the Madhya Bharat Act by just providing that such assessment proceedings initiated or assessments made shall be "deemed to have been validly initiated or made, notwithstanding that the period laid down for initiation or assessment had already expired". Both these sub-sections leave intact sections 8 and to of the Madhya Bharat Act as they were at the time when the judgment in the case of the Firm Jagmohandas Vijaykumar (supra) was pronounced. Both these sub-sections leave intact sections 8 and to of the Madhya Bharat Act as they were at the time when the judgment in the case of the Firm Jagmohandas Vijaykumar (supra) was pronounced. That being so, it cannot be contended with any degree of force that section 18-A directly, or even indirectly, amends sections 8 and 10 of the Madhya Bharat Act so as to provide' from the very commencement of that Act for the extended period of limitation referred to in section 18-A (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Act for completion of assessments made under those provisions. 10. Realising this difficulty, leaned Advocate-General felt himself constrained to argue that section 18-A should be read as apart of the proviso to section 52 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Act, and that so read, it has the effect of modifying the operation of the Madhya Bharat Act in relation to the matters saved by the aforesaid proviso. This argument does not advance any further the cast of the respondents. It will be seen that the substantive part of section 52 (1) repeals certain Sales Tax Acts including the Madhya Bharat Act. What the proviso does is to save the previous operation of the repealed Acts or any right, title, obligation or liability already acquired, accrued or incurred there-under. The expressions "previous operation" and "there under" occurring in the proviso are very significant, and they show, that the right, title, obligation or liability, already acquired, accrued, or, incurred; which have been saved, and those which have been acquired or which accrued or were incurred as a result of the operation of the repealed Act as it stood when it was repealed on 1st April 1959. The observations of the Supreme Court in Sales Tax Officer Vs. Banuman Prasad 1967 JLJ 5 = 1967 RN 1 make this position very clear. The observations of the Supreme Court in Sales Tax Officer Vs. Banuman Prasad 1967 JLJ 5 = 1967 RN 1 make this position very clear. Those observations are:- "In view of this proviso it has to be held that when this new Act came into force on 1st April 1959 all rights, title, obligation or liability already acquired, accrued or incurred under the repealed Act by the respondent remained unaffected and intact the rights and liabilities, which had been acquired or incurred under the repealed Act, included the right or liability to be assessed in accordance with the provisions of the repealed Act in respect of turnover of sales effected during the time when that Act was in force". If according to these observations of the Supreme court, the right or liability to be assessed under the Madhya Bharat Act for any period before the commencement of the Madhya Pradesh Act is the right or liability to be assessed in accordance with the provisions of the repealed Act as they operated on the date of the repeal, that is 1st April 1959, then the application of section 18-A (1) to the right or liability to be assessed, saved by the proviso to section 52 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Act, would be incompatible with the saving clause itself which saves all rights, title, obligations or liabilities already acquired, accrued or incurred under the repealed Act and which rights and liabilities include the right or liability to be assessed in accordance with the provisions of the repealed Act as they were on the date of the repeal. It is thus plain that if section 18-A (1) is, as was contended by the learned Advocate-General. taken as modifying the operation of sections 8 and 10 of the Madhya Bharat Act from 1st April 1959 in relation to the rights and liabilities saved by the proviso to section 52 (1), then, the assessment would not be in accordance with the provisions of the repealed Act and there would be an irreconcilable conflict between what the proviso says and what section 18-A (1) lays down. It is significant that the proviso to section 52 (1) has not been amended in any way by the amending Act, and section 18-A also leaves it untouched. The conclusion, therefore, is inescapable that section 18-A, which conflicts with the proviso to section 52 (1), is ineffective. It is significant that the proviso to section 52 (1) has not been amended in any way by the amending Act, and section 18-A also leaves it untouched. The conclusion, therefore, is inescapable that section 18-A, which conflicts with the proviso to section 52 (1), is ineffective. It is easy to see that if this conflict were to be resolved by holding that the proviso to section 52 (1) saving the rights, liabilities etc. was in effecting then, with the repeal of the Madhya Bharat Act by section 52 (1), the right or liability to be assessed under the Madhya Bharat Act would be saved under section 10 of the Madhya Pradesh General Clauses Act, 1957, but not under the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958, and then an irreconcilable conflict between section 18-A of the Madhya Pradesh Act and section 10 of the M.P. General Clauses Act, 1957, would arise. In our view, section 18-A is utterly ineffective in getting aver the effect of the judgment of this Court in the case of Firm Jagmohandas Vijayakumar (supra), or the three years limitation within which assessments under sections 8 and 10 of the Madhya Bharat Act had to be completed. 11. It must be noted that after the repeal of the Madhya Bharat Act by the substantive part of section 52 (1) there could be no amendment or modification of sections 8 and 10 of that Act so as to effect the rights and liabilities acquired or incurred during the operation of the said Act, before it was repealed. A saving clause restricts a repealing statute and prevents it from affecting the rights accrued or to liabilities incurred under the repealed Act. So, far as the rights, obligations and liabilities are saved, the effect of a saving clause is that the portions of the repealed Act necessary for working out the rights, obligations or liabilities which are saved, remain in force. In regard to the effect of saving clauses, it has been stated in Halsbury's Laws of England (Second Edition. Vel. 31, page-485) that- "Their effect is that portions of the repealed statute remain in-force as if the second statute had not been passed." The repealed Act thus remains in force only for a limited purpose of working out the rights and liabilities saved, and not for all purposes. Vel. 31, page-485) that- "Their effect is that portions of the repealed statute remain in-force as if the second statute had not been passed." The repealed Act thus remains in force only for a limited purpose of working out the rights and liabilities saved, and not for all purposes. Therefore, after an Act is repealed, there can be no amendment of it so as to effect the rights accrued or the liabilities incurred under the re pealed Act and which have been saved by the repealing Act Section 18-A (1) is not a provision made merely for working out the right or liability to be assessed in accordance with the provisions of the repealed Act, which have even saved under section 52 (1). It purports to affect the right or liability to be assessed in accordance with the provisions of the repealed Act itself. The righter liability to be assessed in accordance with the provisions of the repealed Madhya Bharat Act means the right or liability to be assessed within the period of limitation of three years for the completion of assessments under sections 8 and 10 of that Act To provide after the repeal of that Act a different period of limitation far completion of assessments under those provisions is to affect the very right or liability to be assessed which have been saved under section 52 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Act. 12. For the foregoing reasons, our conclusion is that section 18-A of the Madhya Pradesh Act is utterly ineffective and does not in any way get ever the effect of this Court's decision in the case of Firm Jagmohandas Vijaykumar (supra) or affect the provisions of sections 8 and 10 of the Madhya Bharat Act as they were considered by this Court in the case of Firm Jagmohandas Vijaykumar. The respondents are still bound by the decision in the case of Firm Jagmohandas Vijaykumar and are not entitled to continue the proceedings for assessment of sales-tax against the petitioner for the year 1957-58. The result is that this petition succeeds, and the respondents are prohibited from making any assessment against the petitioner firm for the year 1957-58. The applicant shall have costs of this application. Counsel's fee is fixed at Rs. 250/-. The outstanding amount of security deposit shall be refunded to the petitioner.