Effect of repeal - Indian Laws - General

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or existing at the time at which the repeal takes effect; or (b) affect the previous operation of any enactment so repealed or anything duly done or suffered thereunder; or (c) affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under any enactment so repealed; or (d) affect any penalty, forfeiture or punishment incurred in respect of any offence committed against any enactment so repealed; or (e) affect any investigation, legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any such right, privilege, obligation, liability, penalty, forfeiture or punishment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an Act passed after 1850 repeals wholly or partially any former enactment and substitutes provision for the enactment repealed, the repealed enactment remains in force until the substituted provisions come into operation.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.