Show cause notice was issued under Gold Control Act, which was challenged when the stay was continued the Gold Control Act itself was repealed. It was contended that, as the Gold Control Act itself has been repealed without a saving clause, Section 6 of the General Clauses Act would not apply for the reason that the objects and reasons show that the Act was sought to be repealed without any saving clause. It was argued that upon the objects and reasons using the expression “regressive” and the fact that it has given rise to considerable dissatisfaction in the minds of the public as it has caused hardship and harassment to artisans and small self-employed goldsmiths. Accordingly the statement of objects and reasons clearly evinces a contrary intention as a result of which, nothing will survive the repeal of this Act. This being so, a show cause notice which has been upheld by the Delhi High Court would not survive. On behalf the revenue it was contended that once there is a repeal simpliciter, without any savings clause, the whole object of such a repeal was so that the general rule under Section 6 would apply, as a result of which the law laid down in State of Punjabvs. Mohar Singh, [1955] 1 SCR 893, would apply.Court held that ,having heard learned counsel for both sides, we are of the view that 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. Court also observed that ,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. In this behalf, it would be apposite to refer to New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. C. Padma and Another, (2003) 7 SCC 713 (para 10)

8) This Court noticed that, in a parallel instance of simpliciter repeal, Parliament realized the grave injustice and injury that had been caused to heirs of LRs of victims of accidents if their petitions were rejected only on the ground of limitation. This being the case, this Court found that a different intention had been expressed and, therefore, Section 6-A of the General Clauses Act would not in that situation apply. Court also observed that in a similar situation in the present case. In point of fact, on going through the impugned judgment, it is clear that every time an amendment was made to the Defence of India Rules and/or repeal of the said rules had taken place, there was always an inbuilt savings clause.In fact, Section 116 of the Gold (Control) Ordinance No.6 of 1968 also made it clear that it went to the extent, in sub-section 2 thereof, by saving show cause notices which, ordinarily, are not saved even if Section 6 were to apply – See M.S. Shivananda vs. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation and Others, [1980] 1 SCR 684 following Director of Public Works &Anr. vs. Ho Po Sang & Ors., [1961] 2 All. ER 721. This being the case, we are of the view that the showcause notice dated 01.06.1971, which is the subject matter of this appeal, no longer survives. In this view of the matter, the appeal is disposed off. Given the fact that the show cause notice and proceedings thereafter have now disappeared as a result of the repeal of the Gold Control Act, we give liberty to both parties to add to or amend or delete the questions in the Wealth Tax Reference within a period of eight weeks from today. Once this is done, the writ petitions will taken up and decided on their merits. Considering these writ petitions are of 2005, we request the High Court to hear the same expeditiously. Appeals  allowed  and set aside the common impugned judgment of the High Court.( CA.No. 10824 OF 2018, dt. 30.10.2018)