9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 858X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s no room for expression of a contrary opinion. However, if the repeal is followed by a fresh enactment on the same subject, the applicability of the General Clauses Act would undoubtedly require an examination of the language in the new enactment to see if it expresses a different intention from the earlier Act. The enquiry would necessitate an examination if the old rights and liabilities are kept alive or whether the new Act manifests an intention to do away with or destroy them. If the new Act manifests a different intention, the application of the General Clauses Act will stand excluded. There were no proceedings pending against the respondent under the Act of 1973 when the new Act came into force on 01.04.2003. The suo-moto revisional ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 00 of 2011, Civil Appeal No(s). 10820 of 2011, Civil Appeal No(s). 10811 of 2011, Civil Appeal No(s). 10813 of 2011, Civil Appeal No(s). 10814 of 2011, Civil Appeal No(s). 10809 of 2011, Civil Appeal No(s). 10817-10818 of 2011, Civil Appeal No(s). 10824 of 2011, Civil Appeal No(s). 10830 of 2011, Civil Appeal No(s). 10829 of 2011, Civil Appeal No(s). 10828 of 2011, Civil Appeal No(s). 10826-10827 of 2011, Civil Appeal No(s). 10825 of 2011, Civil Appeal No(s). 10821-10823 of 2011, Civil Appeal No(s). 10831 of 2011, Civil Appeal No(s). 10837 of 2011, Civil Appeal No(s). 10833 of 2011, Civil Appeal No(s). 10832 of 2011, Civil Appeal No(s). 10834-10835 of 2011, Civil Appeal No(s). 10840-10841 of 2011 And Civil Appeal No(s). 10838-10839 of 2011, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2004, the respondent was held liable for recovery of ₹ 65,35,632/-. 3. The order for recovery having been challenged by the respondent before the High Court, it was held that resort to Section 40 of the Act of 1973, after coming into force of the new Act on 01.04.2003 was unsustainable, as the repeal and saving clause in Section 61 of the Act of 2003, saved only pending proceedings under the former. Since there were no proceedings pending against the respondent under the repealed Act, on the relevant date, the proceedings thereunder could not be sustained or justified by reference to Section 4 of the Punjab General Clauses Act, 1898. 4. Sh. Manish Paliwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Haryana, submitted that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by reason of Section 4 of the Punjab General Clauses Act, 1898. 6. Sh. P.H. Parekh, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, urged that the impugned order called for no interference. The repeal and saving clause in Section 61 of the Act of 2003 exclusively saved pending proceedings only. The application of the Punjab General Clauses Act, 1898, therefore, stood excluded by the expression of a different intention in the repealing Act. The legislature subsequently amended Section 61 of the Act of 2003, suitably on 02.04.2010. 7. At the outset, it is appropriate to set out the unamended and amended provisions of Section 61 of the Act of 2003 to facilitate better appreciation of issues. Section 61 of 2003 Act (Before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cation, appeal, revision or other proceedings under this Act as if it had been in force on the date on which such application, appeal, revision or other proceedings were made or preferred; (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), - [(a) any application, appeal, revision or other proceedings made or preferred to any officer or authority under the said Act and pending at the commencement of this Act, shall, after such commencement, be transferred to and disposed of by the officer or authority who would have had jurisdiction to entertain such application, appeal, revision or other proceedings under this Act as if the said Act had been in force on the date on which such application, appeal, revision or other proceedings we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lause in Section 61 of the Act of 2003, saved only pending proceedings under the repealed Act. The intendment clearly was that matters which stood closed under the Act of 1973 had to be given a quietus and could not be reopened. 10. The assessment under the Act of 1973 having been completed and refund ordered, the exercise of suo-moto revisional powers under Section 40 of the same after repeal was clearly unsustainable in view of the contrary intention expressed under Section 61 of the Act of 2003, saving only pending proceedings. Section 4 of the Punjab General Clauses Act, 1858 will have no application in view of the contrary intendment expressed in Section 61 of the repealing Act. Had a contrary intention not been expressed, the issues ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
