Meaning of words ‘repeal’ ‘substitute’ and ‘omission’ - Indian Laws - General

Meaning of words repeal substitute and omission The words repeal , substitute and omission have different tenor in a literal sense but tend to denote a similar meaning when used in the context of any amendment of law. While the words themselves may not cause a conflict, it is the consequences of the amendment on the rights and liabilities of the parties that have led to the courts differentiating between these terms. It is to humbly submit that the Supreme Court has dealt with these three terms used by the legislature while amending any law in the afore-mentioned backdrop,. The Legal Thesaurus (Deluxe Edition) by William C Burton, 1979 Edition. The expression delete is defined by the Thesaurus as follows: Delete: - Blot out, cancel, censor, cross off, cross out, cut, cut out, dele, discard, do away with, drop, edit out, efface, elide, eliminate, eradicate, erase, excise, expel, expunge, extirpate, get rid of, leave out, modify by excisions, obliterate, omit, remove, rub out, rule out, scratch out, strike off, take out, weed wipe out. Likewise the expression omit is also defined by this Thesaurus as follows:- Omit: - Abstain from inserting, bypass, cast aside, count out, cut out, delete, discard, dodge, drop exclude, exclude, fail to do, fail to include, fail to insert, fail to mention, leave out, leave undone, let go, let pass, let slip, miss, neglect, omittere, pass over, praetermittere, skip, slight, transire. And the expression repeal is defined as follows:- Repeal: - Abolish, abrogare, abrogate, annul, avoid, cancel, countermand, declare null and void, delete, eliminate, formally withdraw, invalidate, make void, negate, nullify, obliterate, officially withdraw, override, overrule, quash, recall, render invalid, rescind, rescindere, retract, reverse, revoke, set aside, vacate, void, withdraw. In Halsbury s Laws of England Fourth Edition, in the Fibre Board s judgment in Para 32 - [ 2015 (8) TMI 482 - SUPREME COURT ],it is stated that: So far as express repeal is concerned , it is not necessary that any particular form of words should be used. All that is required is that an intention to abrogate the enactment or portion in question should be clearly shown. (Thus, whilst the formula is hereby repealed is frequently used, it is equally common for it to be provided that an enactment shall cease to have effect (or, If not yet in operation, shall not have effect ) or that a particular portion of an enactment shall be omitted). On a conjoint reading of the three expressions delete , omit , and repeal , it becomes clear that delete and omit are used interchangeably, so that when the expression repeal refers to delete it would necessarily take within its ken an omission as well. This being the case, we do not find any substance in the argument that a repeal amounts to an obliteration from the very beginning, whereas an omission is only in futuro. If the expression delete would amount to a repeal , which the appellant s counsel does not deny, it is clear that a conjoint reading of Halsbury s Laws of England and the Legal Thesaurus cited hereinabove both lead to the same result, namely that an omission being tantamount to a deletion is a form of repeal. [ M/s. Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills Versus Commissioner of Central Excise Another ] As per section 6 of the General Clauses Act 1897 - Effect of repeal. Where this Act, or any Central Act or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act, repeals any enactment hitherto made or hereafter to be made, then, unless a different intention appears, the repeal shall not-- (a) revive anything not in force or existing at the time at which the repeal takes effect; or (b) affect the previous operation of any enactment so repealed or anything duly done or suffered thereunder; or (c) affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under any enactment so repealed; or (d) affect any penalty, forfeiture or punishment incurred in respect of any offence committed against any enactment so repealed; or (e) affect any investigation, legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any such right, privilege, obligation, liability, penalty, forfeiture or punishment as aforesaid; and any such investigation, legal proceeding or remedy may be instituted, continued or enforced, and any such penalty, forfeiture or punishment may be imposed as if the repealing Act or Regulation had not been passed. In Halsbury's Laws of England, 3rd edn., Vol. 36. p. 474: Where an Act passed after 1850 repeals wholly or partially any former enactment and substitutes provision for the enactment repealed, the repealed enactment remains in force until the substituted provisions come into operation. And observed: We do not think that the word substitution necessarily or always connotes two severable steps, that is to say, one of repeal and another of a fresh enactment even if it implies two steps. Indeed, the natural meaning of the word substitution is to indicate that the process cannot be split up into two pieces like this. If the process described as substitution fails, it is totally ineffective so as to leave intact what was sought to be displaced. That seems to us to be the ordinary and natural meaning of the words 'shall be substituted'. [BHAGAT RAM SHARMA VERSUS. UNION OF INDIA ORS- 1987 (11) TMI 378 - SUPREME COURT] The Apex Court in the case of Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd., Vs. Union of India [2000 (2) TMI 823 - SUPREME COURT] , held that- section 6 of the General Clauses Act only applies to repeals and not to omissions, and applies when the repeal is of a Central Act or Regulation and not as a Rule. It was further clarified by the Apex Court that in such a case the court is to look to the provisions in the rule which has been introduced after omission of the previous rule to determine whether a pending proceeding will continue or lapse. If there is a provision therein that pending proceedings shall continue and be disposed of under the old rule as if the rule has not been deleted or omitted then such a proceeding will continue. If the case is covered by Section 6 of the General Clauses Act or there is a pari-materia provision in the statute under which the rule has been framed in that case also the pending proceeding will not be affected by omission of the rule. M/s Texport Overseas Private Limited,[ 2017 (12) TMI 1719 - ITAT BANGALORE ] - once a particular provision of section is omitted from the statute, it shall be deemed to be omitted from its inception unless and until there is some saving clause or provision to make it clear that action taken or proceeding initiated under that provision or section would continue and would not be left on account of omission. The Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of M/s.Texport Overseas Pvt Ltd.[ 2019 (12) TMI 1312 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ] , held that once the section 92BA(i) was omitted with effect from 01/04/2017, it means it never existed on the statute. Further the Hon ble Karnataka High Court held that for this reason the Order passed by TPO for earlier year is unsustainable in law. In the case of General Finance Co., Vs. ACIT, [2002 (9) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT], their Lordship Of the Apex Court held that the principle underlying section 6 as saving the right to initiate proceedings for liabilities incurred during the currency of the Act will not apply to omission of a provision in an Act but only to repeal, omission being different from repeal as held in the aforesaid decisions. Uttam Energy Ltd. Vs ACIT, [2024 (8) TMI 37 - ITAT PUNE] - held that as per the rule of precedence , we have to follow the decision of Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Texport Overseas P Ltd. [ 2019 (12) TMI 1312 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ] . In M/S. Raipur steel casting India (P) Ltd, M/S. Srinath ji furnishing Pvt. limited V/s P.C.I.T., [ 2020 (6) TMI 629 - ITAT KOLKATA ] - held that- An omission of a provision is different from a repeal and section 6 of the General Clauses Act applies to a repealed law and not to omission of law, therefore section 6 of the General Clauses Act does not apply. So in the assessee`s case it is noted that in the Income Tax Act, clause (i) of section 92BA was omitted from the Act and not repealed, hence pending proceedings/ prosecution could not have been launched or continued by invoking section 6 of the General Clauses Act after its omission.