9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Interpretation of retrospective amendment affecting annuity deposit recovery and applicability of General Clauses Act.
Interpretation of Retrospective Amendment: The petitioner argued that the annuity deposit is not recoverable post an amendment by the Finance Act, No. 13 of 1966, which omitted certain sections. The petitioner contended that the amendment had retrospective effect, preventing recovery. However, the court disagreed, citing precedents like J. K. K. Angappan v. ITO and C. Doraiswamy v. TRO. The court differentiated cases like CIT v. Maharaja Pratapsingh Bahadur and Rayala Corporation (P.) Ltd. v. Director of Enforcement, emphasizing that the liability for the annuity deposit existed before April 1, 1967, and was not affected by subsequent omissions in the law. The court concluded that the liability, having validly accrued, could still be enforced post the amendment, as there was no intention to exclude the operation of the General Clauses Act. Applicability of General Clauses Act: The petitioner's counsel argued against the applicability of s. 6 of the General Clauses Act in interpreting the provisions. However, the court found no intention to the contrary to exclude the operation of s. 6. The court emphasized that the liability for the annuity deposit was clear and enforceable, even after the amendment came into force. The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that there was no justification to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction, thereby upholding the enforceability of the annuity deposit despite the subsequent amendment.
|
