Whether S 6 of General Clauses Act will apply if contrary intention appears in new enactment?

 Shri Sundaram's submission is also not in consonance with the law laid down in some of our judgments. The approach to statutes, which amend a statute by way of repeal, was put most felicitously by B.K. Mukherjea, J. in State of Punjab v. Mohar Singh, MANU/SC/0043/1954 : 1955 1 SCR 893 at 899-900, thus:

In our opinion the approach of the High Court to the question is not quite correct. Whenever there is a repeal of an enactment, the consequences laid down in Section 6 of the General Clauses Act will follow unless, as the Section 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. 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal Nos. 2879-2880 of 2018
Decided On: 15.03.2018

 Board of Control for Cricket in India Vs. Kochi Cricket Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Print Page

Whether S 6 of General clauses Act is applicable to omission of rule?

 Learned Solicitor General appearing for the Appellant submitted that the view taken by the High Court is erroneous. The charge against the Respondent was of evasion of excise duty Under Section 9(1)(b) which remains unamended. The evasion was on account of the Respondent having taken credit without following the procedure Under Rule 56A. By omission of the said Rule, the charge did not suffer from any legal infirmity. Alternatively, it was submitted that Section 6 of the General Clauses Act applied to omission which was also repeal. It also applies to a Rule. In this regard, reliance has been placed on Fibre Boards Pvt. Ltd. Bangalore v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore MANU/SC/0848/2015 : (2015) 10 SCC 333, Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills v. Commissioner of Central Excise MANU/SC/1341/2015 : (2016) 3 SCC 643. It was also submitted that retrospective amendment has been made to the Act by the Finance Act, 2001 making it clear that actions taken Under a Rule will not lapse even if the Rule is omitted. The Explanation applied only to future action and not to continuing action. 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1045 of 2017

Decided On: 12.09.2017

 Chandpaklal Ramanlal Shah and Ors. Vs.Reliance Industries Ltd.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

A.K. Goel and U.U. Lalit, JJ.

Citation: AIR 2017 SC 4964

Print Page

Whether in tax law law to be applied has to be law in force in assessment year?

 It is
ludicrous on the part of the Revenue authorities to expect the
assessees to do something which is almost impossible
13) In M/s. Reliance Jute and Industries Ltd. v. C.I.T., West

Bengal, Calcutta  (1980) 1 SCC 139
, this Court had, no doubt, pointed out the
cardinal principle of tax law that the law to be applied has to be
the law in force in the assessment year. However, this is qualified
by the exception when it is provided otherwise expressly or by
necessary implication, as is clear from the following
observations:
“6. The assessee claims a vested right under
Section 24(2)(iii), as it stood before its amendment
in 1957, to have the unabsorbed loss of 1950-51
carried forward from year to year until the loss is
completely absorbed. The claim is based on a
misconception of the fundamental basis underlying
every income tax assessment. It is a cardinal
principle of the tax law that the law to be applied is
that in force in the assessment year unless
otherwise provided expressly or by necessary
implication...”
14) In the same paragraph, the Court also remarked that 'a right
claimed by an assessee under the law in force in a particular
assessment year is ordinarily available only in relation to a
proceeding pertaining to that year'. Thus, it clearly follows that
though normally the law which is in force in the assessment year
would prevail, but this is not an absolute principle as the Court
itself carved out exceptions thereto by making it clear that such
exception can be either express or implied by necessary
implication. Even the principle which is mentioned is qualified with the words 'ordinarily available'.

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4476 OF 2015
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 24330 OF 2011)
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-19
MUMBAI .
V
M/S. SARKAR BUILDERS 


A.K. SIKRI, J.
Citation; (2015) 7 SCC 579

Print Page