Sushila N. Rungta (D) Lrs. vs The Tax Recovery Officer-16(2) and Ors.

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

30 October 2018

Case No.

Civil Appeal Nos. 10824 of 2018

Result

Allowed

Bench

R.F. Nariman, Navin Sinha

Citation

[2018] 13 S.C.R. 1147 : 2018 INSC 1020

Headnote

Gold (Control) Act, 1968: Repeal of the Act without the saving clause – Applicability of s.6 of the General Clauses Act – Held: The statement of objects and reasons makes it clear that over 22 years, the results achieved under the Act were not encouraging and the desired objectives for which the Act was introduced have failed – This being the case, the repeal simpliciter will not attract the provisions of s.6 of the General Clauses Act as a contrary intention is very clearly expressed in the statement of objects and reasons to the 1990 repeal Act – General Clauses Act – s.6 – Repeal – Defence of India Rules – Gold (Control) Repeal Act, 1990.

Allowing the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1. The statement of objects and reasons makes it clear that over 22 years, the results achieved under the Act have not been encouraging and the desired objectives for which the Act has been introduced have failed. Following the advice of experts, who have examined issues related to the Act, the objects and reasons goes on further to state that this Act has proved to be a regressive measure which has caused considerable dissatisfaction in the minds of the public and hardship and harassment to artisans and small self-employed goldsmiths. [Para 6][1151-D-E]

2. The repeal simpliciter, in the instant case, does not attract the provisions of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act as a contrary intention is very clearly expressed in the statement of objects and reasons to the 1990 repeal Act. [Para 7][1151-E-F] New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. C. Padma and Another (2003) 7 SCC 713 : [2003] 3 Suppl. SCR 677; M.S. Shivananda v. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation and Others [1980] 1 SCR 684 – relied on. State of Punjab v. Mohar Singh [1955] 1 SCR 893 – referred to.

Director of Public Works & Anr. v. Ho Po Sang & Ors. [1961] 2 All. ER 721 – referred to.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by R. F. NARIMAN, J. Civil Appeal No. 723/1973: 1. In this appeal, an order dated 03.01.1970 was passed by the Collector of Central Excise in which, it was ordered as follows:- “17. In view of the above-mentioned facts, the party charged is entitled to the benefit of the amnesty granted by the Government. Even though he had initially failed to declare the gold, time was available to him up to 31.5.66 to invest the gold into gold bonds and his intentions would have materialised but for the fact that seizure of gold prevented him from tendering the Gol

View Subscription Plans →