Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 1991 (10) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

1991 (10) TMI 128 - HC - Central Excise

Issues:
1. Whether the prosecution under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 is sustainable after its repeal by the Gold (Control) Repeal Bill, 1990.
2. Interpretation of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act regarding the consequences of repeal of an enactment.
3. Analysis of the Statement of Objects and Reasons in the Gold (Control) Repeal Bill, 1990.
4. Application of legal principles from State of Punjab v. Mohar Singh (AIR 1955 SC 84) and Keshavan v. State of Bombay (AIR 1951 SC 128) in the present case.

Detailed Analysis:

1. The petition sought to quash proceedings under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, alleging its repeal by the Gold (Control) Repeal Bill, 1990. The petitioner argued that the repeal should invalidate the ongoing prosecution. However, the respondents contended that Section 6 of the General Clauses Act preserves legal actions initiated under a repealed Act unless a different intention is evident. The Court examined the intention behind the repeal and the effect on existing rights and liabilities under the repealed Act.

2. Section 6 of the General Clauses Act stipulates that a repeal of an enactment does not affect rights, obligations, or legal proceedings under the repealed law unless a contrary intention is apparent. The petitioner relied on the Statement of Objects and Reasons in the Repeal Bill to argue for discontinuation of prosecutions under the repealed Act. However, the Court emphasized that mere dissatisfaction with the previous law does not imply a legislative intent to halt ongoing legal actions automatically.

3. Citing the case of State of Punjab v. Mohar Singh (AIR 1955 SC 84), the Court highlighted that a new legislation on the same subject does not necessarily extinguish rights and liabilities under the old law unless expressly provided. The absence of a saving clause does not negate the application of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act. The Court underscored the need to ascertain any intention to destroy existing rights from the provisions of the new law.

4. Referring to Keshavan v. State of Bombay (AIR 1951 SC 128), the Court reiterated that the retrospective operation of laws, like Article 13(1) of the Indian Constitution, does not affect past transactions and vested rights. This principle supported the conclusion that actions taken under a repealed Act remain valid unless a clear intention to the contrary is evident. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition to quash the ongoing prosecution under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, emphasizing the preservation of legal proceedings post-repeal unless a different legislative intent is demonstrated.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates