1988 (3) TMI 242 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of the notification bringing the Act into force
2. Interpretation of Section 1(3) of the Act
3. Authority of the Central Government to issue notification

Analysis:

Issue 1: Validity of the notification bringing the Act into force

The petitioner argued that the Act had not come into force as Parliament had not fixed a date for its enforcement. However, the Central Government issued a notification on November 14, 1985, appointing the date for the Act to come into force. The petitioner contended that this notification was without legal authority. The court examined the provisions of the General Clauses Act, which dictate that in the absence of a specified date, an Act comes into operation on the date it receives the President's assent. Therefore, the notification issued by the Central Government was deemed valid and within its powers.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Section 1(3) of the Act

The petitioner argued that Section 1(3) of the Act had not come into operation, rendering the entire Act ineffective. The court disagreed, citing the legislative practice where the executive is empowered to determine the date of enforcement of an Act. The court emphasized that Section 1(3) must be read in a pragmatic and sensible manner to avoid rendering numerous enactments ineffective. The court also referred to a Supreme Court decision to support the view that Section 1(3) of an Act comes into operation immediately upon passing.

Issue 3: Authority of the Central Government to issue notification

The petitioner contended that the Central Government lacked the authority to issue the notification bringing the Act into force. The court rejected this argument, stating that the General Clauses Act empowered the Central Government to issue such notifications in the absence of a specified date for enforcement. The court emphasized that the legislative intent was to allow the executive to enforce the Act at a suitable time, considering various factors.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the Original Petition, ruling that the investigation against the petitioner under the Act was valid and not open to challenge based on the grounds raised in the petition. The judgment highlighted the importance of interpreting legislative provisions in a practical and reasonable manner to avoid unintended consequences.