9911796707
TMI Blog1967 (2) TMI 26X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dispute in favour of the petitioners. During the pendency of those proceedings the petitioners applied for summoning the clerk of the Income-tax Officer with balance-sheet and profit and loss accounts for the years 1950 to 1954 of Rama Machinery Stores Company. The case of the petitioners was that Rama Machinery Stores Company was carrying on business in the suit premises since 1950 as a tenant and that Lachhman Singh, petitioner, was a partner of that firm. After summons had been issued, in accordance with the prayer of the petitioners, the Income-tax Officer sent a letter claiming privilege in respect of the production of the documents under section 54 of the Indian Income-tax Act of 1922. According to the Income-tax Officer, he could not produce the aforesaid documents on account of the bar created by that provision of law. The petitioners also applied for summoning the clerk of the office of the Commissioner of Sales-tax, Delhi, with the file of Rama Machinery Stores Company and that of Golden Machinery Stores Company. It was also mentioned by the petitioners that they were particularly keen about the production of application forms S. T. I. relating to the registration of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The language of the section is of a comprehensive nature and prevents the production of all kinds of documents and returns which have been filed with the sales tax authorities. The documents sought to be produced from the Sales Tax Office are of the kind covered by the above section, and, in the circumstances, the Sales Tax Officer, in my opinion, was fully justified in claiming privilege to the production of those documents. Coming now to the privilege claimed by the Income-tax Officer, I find that sub-section (1) of section 54 of the Income-tax Act of 1922 (XI of 1922), under which the privilege has been claimed, reads as under : " All particulars contained in any statement made, return furnished or accounts or documents produced under the provisions of this Act, or in any evidence given, or affidavit or deposition made, in the course of any proceedings under this Act other than proceedings under this Chapter, or in any record of any assessment proceeding, or any proceeding relating to the recovery of a demand, prepared for the purposes of this Act, shall be treated as confidential, and notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (I of 1872), no court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n question was made in the present case in 1966, long after the Indian Income-tax Act of 1922 had been repealed and section 137 of the Income-tax Act of 1961 had been omitted. There was, at the time of the application, no provision corresponding to section 54 of the Act of 1922 and section 137 of the Act of 1961, about the ban on production of the records in question by the income-tax authorities. The case set up on behalf of the department is that the relevant records, relating to the years 1950 to 1954, were filed when section 54 of the Act of 1922 was in force and as under that section there existed a privilege against the production of those documents in court, the same could not be affected even though the aforesaid section was subsequently repealed. There appears to be force in this plea. Section 6(c) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (10 of 1897), reads as under : " 6. 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..... (c) affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in respect of the production of the documents in question at the time they were filed before the income-tax authorities in the present case, the aforesaid privilege could not be affected because of the repeal of section 54 of the Act of 1922, in view of the plain language of clause (c) of section 6 of the General Clauses Act. Mr. Vohra, however, contends that, as the provisions of section 54 of the Act of 1922 as well as its corresponding provision, viz., section 137 of the Act of 1961, have been repealed, this fact would reveal " a different intention " mentioned in section 6 of the General Clauses Act. This contention, in my opinion, is not well founded. Repeal of an enactment by itself and, in the absence of any other additional circumstance, cannot show that the legislature has intended that the rights, privileges, obligations or liabilities acquired, accrued or incurred are affected or set at naught. The acceptance of this contention would be tantamount to making a dead letter of clause (c) of section 6 of the General Clauses Act. The plain inference from clause (c) of section 6 necessarily is that the repeal of an enactment would not affect the rights, privileges, obligatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n itself says, a different intention appears. In the case of a simple repeal there is scarcely any room for expression of a contrary opinion. But when the repeal is followed by fresh legislation on the same subject we would undoubtedly have to look to the provisions of the new Act, but only for the purpose of determining whether they indicate a different intention. The line of enquiry would be, not whether the new Act expressly keeps alive old rights and liabilities but whether it manifests an intention to destroy them. We cannot therefore subscribe to the broad proposition that section 6 of the General Clauses Act is ruled out when there is repeal of an enactment followed by a fresh legislation. Section 6 would be applicable in such cases also unless the new legislation manifests an intention incompatible with or contrary to the provisions of the section. Such incompatibility would have to be ascertained from a consideration of all the relevant provisions of the new law and the mere absence of a saving clause is by itself not material. It is in the light of these principles that we now proceed to examine the facts of the present case. " My attention has been invited to the decis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
