9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Conviction under sections 276E and 278D read with section 269T of the Income-tax Act, 1961 before the omission of section 276E. Analysis: The judgment involves the conviction of the applicants under sections 276E and 278D read with section 269T of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The applicants were sentenced to one day of imprisonment with a fine. The order of conviction by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Indore, was upheld by the Additional Sessions judge, Indore. The key question revolves around the omission of section 276E by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, effective from April 1, 1989, and whether proceedings against the petitioners could continue post this omission. The substantive offense was under section 276E, with section 278D invoked for convicting a company for the same offense. The allegation was that payments were made in cash, violating section 269T. Notably, a new provision, section 271E, was inserted post the amendment Act of 1987, providing for penalties for section 269T violations. The judgment references the Supreme Court decision in Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 2000 SC 811, which elucidates the legal effect of repealing or omitting a statute. The Court held that in the absence of a saving clause for pending proceedings, actions must cease upon the omission taking effect. The judgment emphasizes that the amendment Act of 1987 did not include a saving clause for pending proceedings. Therefore, the applicants' pending proceedings could not continue under the repealed provisions, necessitating the initiation of fresh penalty proceedings under the new provision, section 271E. Consequently, the impugned convictions and sentences against the applicants were set aside, allowing the Department to initiate penalty proceedings under the new provisions. In conclusion, all the petitions succeeded, and the convictions and sentences were overturned. The Department was granted the liberty to commence penalty proceedings under the new provisions. The judgment clarifies that the pending proceedings could not continue under the repealed provisions, emphasizing the need for fresh proceedings under the new legal framework.
|
