2019 (1) TMI 829 - SC - Indian Laws

Benefit of the amnesty scheme - failure to declare the gold in possession - Rule 126-I(16) of the Gold Control Rules, 1962 (Corresponding to Section 74 of the Gold Control Act, 1968) - Held that - The statement of objects and reasons makes it clear that over 22 years, the results achieved under the Act have not been encouraging and the desired objectives for which the Act has been introduced have failed. Following the advice of experts, who have examined issues related to the Act, the objects and reasons goes on further to state that this Act has proved to be a regressive measure which has caused considerable dissatisfaction in the minds of the public and hardship and harassment to artisans and small self-employed goldsmiths - the repeal simpliciter, in the present case, does not attract the provisions of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act as a contrary intention is very clearly expressed in the statement of objects and reasons to the 1990 repeal Act. This Court noticed that, in a parallel instance of simpliciter repeal, Parliament realized the grave injustice and injury that had been caused to heirs of LRs of victims of accidents if their petitions were rejected only on the ground of limitation. This being the case, this Court found that a different intention had been expressed and, therefore, Section 6A of the General Clauses Act would not in that situation apply. The show cause notice dated 1-6-1971, which is the subject matter of this appeal, no longer survives - appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of the impact of the repeal of the Gold Control Act, 1968 on pending legal proceedings and show cause notices.
2. Application of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act in the absence of a saving clause in the repealed Act.
3. Analysis of the statement of objects and reasons for the Gold (Control) Repeal Act, 1990.
4. Comparison of the present case with previous legal precedents regarding the impact of repeal without a saving clause.
5. Decision on the survival of the show cause notice dated 1-6-1971 in light of the repeal of the Gold Control Act, 1968.

Analysis:
1. The judgment dealt with the interpretation of the consequences of the repeal of the Gold Control Act, 1968 on ongoing legal proceedings and show cause notices. The appellant argued that without a saving clause in the repealed Act, Section 6 of the General Clauses Act would not apply, rendering the show cause notice invalid. The respondent contended that the general rule under Section 6 should apply in case of a repeal without a saving clause.

2. The Court analyzed the statement of objects and reasons for the Gold (Control) Repeal Act, 1990, which highlighted the dissatisfaction caused by the Act and the failure to achieve its objectives. The Court considered the contrary intention expressed in the statement, indicating that the repeal was intended to nullify the previous Act without any saving clause.

3. By comparing the present case with previous legal precedents, the Court found that the repeal without a saving clause did not attract the provisions of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act. The Court emphasized that the intention behind the repeal, as evident from the statement of objects and reasons, was to eliminate the Act entirely without saving any provisions.

4. The Court noted that previous amendments to the Defence of India Rules and the Gold (Control) Ordinance included savings clauses, indicating a different legislative intent. Citing relevant legal precedents, the Court concluded that the show cause notice dated 1-6-1971 did not survive the repeal of the Gold Control Act, 1968.

5. Ultimately, the Court held that the show cause notice in question was no longer valid following the repeal of the Gold Control Act. The appeals were allowed, and the High Court's judgment was set aside. The parties were given liberty to modify questions in the Wealth Tax Reference, with a directive for the High Court to expedite the pending writ petitions from 2005.