9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (11) TMI 84X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 00 to applicant No. 3 I.D. one month SI as also the order dated September 21, 1998, passed by learned ASJ, Indore, in Criminal Appeal No. 72 of 1996 thereby maintaining conviction and sentence. Indisputably, applicants No. 1, Narendrakumar, and No. 2, Promodkumar, are partners of applicant No. 3, Khandelwal Steel Sales, 27, South Hathipala, Indore. The non-applicants had filed a criminal complaint against the applicants on March 30, 1987. The allegation made in the complaint was that in the previous relevant to assessment year 1986-87, the accused persons had paid interest amount of Rs. 23,158,75 to various creditors but they failed to deduct and deposit in time the corresponding tax deducted at source amount of Rs. 2,314. The trial court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s that prior to April 1, 1989, the provision under section 276B of the Act, prescribing that if a person fails to deduct or after deducting fails to pay any advance as required by or under the provisions of sub-section (9) of section 80E of Chapter XVII-B, was punishable. This provision of section 276B, has been amended by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, with effect from April 1, 1989, which prescribes punishment for failure to pay tax deducted at source. Thus up to April 1, 1989, failure to deduct tax deducted at source was also an offence but after April 1, 1989, only if a person deducted tax deducted at source but did not pay tax then it was an offence for which the person concerned is liable for punishment. He has also submi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e late in time. Therefore, no offence could be made out against them. Learned counsel in support of his submissions placed reliance on the following decisions: (1) Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 2000 SC 811; (2) General Finance Co. v. Asst. CIT [2002] 257 ITR 338 (SC); and (3) Kaushal Kishore Biyani v. Union of India [2002] 256 ITR 679 (MP). Learned counsel for the non-applicants submitted that there is no saving clause in the amendment Act about retrospective applicability. Therefore, the complaint was filed well within the purview of the old law because the incident had taken place when the old law was prevalent and the applicants will not get any benefit of omission of their penal provision by amended Act. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion P. Ltd. v. Director of Enforcement [1969] 2 SCC 412; [1970] AIR 1970 SC 494 and Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 2000 SC 811, has held as under: "The view taken by the High Court is not consistent with what has been stated by the Supreme Court in the two decisions aforesaid and the principle underlying section 6 of the General Clauses Act 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. In the Income-tax Act, section 276DD stood omitted from the Act but not repealed and hence, a prosecution could not have been launched or c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
