Search Results For: repeal of a statute


Sushila N. Rungta vs. TRO (Supreme Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE: ,
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: October 30, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 6, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Interpretation of statutes: Effect of repeal of a statute u/s 6 of the General Clauses Act on pending proceedings explained in the context of the Gold Control Act and in view of law laid down in State of Punjab vs. Mohar Singh [1955] 1 SCR 893, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. C. Padma (2003) 7 SCC 713 etc

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. This being the case, we are of the opinion that the repeal simpliciter, in the present 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

Fibre Boards (P) Ltd vs. CIT (Supreme Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: August 11, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 12, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 1991-92
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 54G does not require that the machinery etc has to be acquired in the same AY in which the transfer takes place. It is sufficient if the capital gain is “utilized” towards purchase of P&M by giving advances to suppliers. Section 24 of the General Clauses Act applies also to ‘omissions’ along with `repeals’ and saves rights given by subordinate legislation

The aforesaid construction by the High Court of Section 54G would render nugatory a vital part of the said Section so far as the assessee is concerned. Under sub-section (1), the assessee is given a period of three years after the date on which the transfer takes place to purchase new machinery or plant and acquire building or land or construct building for the purpose of his business in the said area. If the High Court is right, the assessee has to purchase and/or acquire machinery, plant, land and building within the same assessment year in which the transfer takes place. Further, the High Court has missed the key words “not utilized” in sub-section (2) which would show that it is enough that the capital gain made by the assessee should only be “utilized” by him in the assessment year in question for all or any of the purposes aforesaid, that is towards purchase and acquisition of plant and machinery, and land and building. Advances paid for the purpose of purchase and/or acquisition of the aforesaid assets would certainly amount to utilization by the assessee of the capital gains made by him for the purpose of purchasing and/or acquiring the aforesaid assets

Top