9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 in relation to the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 and its repeal. Analysis: The High Court of Andhra Pradesh was tasked with deciding whether the issuance of a show cause notice constituted the commencement of proceedings under Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, and if the service of the notice before the repeal of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 was a legal requirement for the continuation of proceedings. The reference was made by the Revenue following a Tribunal decision that went against them based on a Supreme Court judgment. The case involved a search on 24-12-1989 where gold was seized, and a show cause notice for confiscation was issued on 4-6-1990, just before the Act was repealed on 6-6-1990. The Tribunal set aside the order of fine, citing the absence of a saving clause in the repealed Act. The Additional Solicitor General argued that in cases of repeal of Acts of Parliament, even without a savings clause, Section 6 of the General Clauses Act would apply. Citing a Supreme Court judgment, it was highlighted that when a provision is unconditionally omitted without a saving clause, pending proceedings must stop unless final relief has been granted. The Supreme Court's view emphasized that the effect of repeal on past and future proceedings depends on the presence of savings clauses. If a new provision is introduced without a saving clause, pending proceedings may not continue under the old provision. In light of the arguments presented, the High Court ruled in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee, interpreting that the show cause notice issued before the repeal of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 was a valid commencement of proceedings under Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, allowing the proceedings to continue despite the repeal of the Act.
|
