SUSHILA N. RUNGTA (D) LRS.versusTHE TAX RECOVERY OFFICER-16(2) AND ORS.

                       [2018] 13 S.C.R. 1147                             1147


                 SUSHILA N. RUNGTA (D) LRS.                              A
                                  v.
       THE TAX RECOVERY OFFICER-16(2) AND ORS.
                  (Civil Appeal Nos. 10824 of 2018)
                        OCTOBER 30, 2018                                 B
          [R. F. NARIMAN AND NAVIN SINHA, JJ.]
      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,
                                                                         C
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       D
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            E
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              F
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         G
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.               H
                            1147
1148            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2018] 13 S.C.R.


 A           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.
                              Case Law Reference
 B
       [1955] 1 SCR 893                referred to               Para 5
       [2003] 3 Suppl. SCR 677         relied on                 Para 7
       [1980] 1 SCR 684                relied on                 Para 9
             CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 10824
 C
       of 2018.
             From the Judgment and Order dated 22.08.2016 of the High
       Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 793 of 2005.
                                        With
 D          C.A. Nos. 10830, 10829, 10831, 10825, 10833, 10832, 10826, 10827,
       10828 of 2018 and 723 of 1973.
             R. Venkataramani, Sr. Adv., Shivaji M. Jadhav, Yashraj Bundela,
       Praveen Vignesh, Ms. Astha Deep, Aditya Khanna for M/s. S. M. Jadhav
       and Company, Advs. for the Appellant.
 E
             Rupesh Kumar, Ms. Sadhana Sandhu, Shreyash Bhardwaj,
       Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Advs. for the respondent.
             The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
             R. F. NARIMAN, J.
 F
             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
 G           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 Gold to the Bank,
             as it was not in his possession at that time.
 H
   SUSHILA N. RUNGTA (D) LRS. v. THE TAX RECOVERY                                1149
      OFFICER-16(2) AND ORS. [R. F. NARIMAN, J.]

      18. While intention to invest the gold in gold bonds is conceded           A
      failure to declare was, no doubt, there. He was required by law
      to declare his gold to the Government. Since he did not declare
      this gold, even though he is given the benefit of the gold bond
      scheme, he has rendered himself liable to punishment for not
      declaring his gold, at the appropriate time, as required by law.
                                                                                 B
      19. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and
      weighing the merits of the evidence available on record, I order
      that the gold shall be released to the party charged for invest in
      gold bond in pursuance of the application tendered by him to the
      State Bank of Indore in 1965.
                                                                                 C
      20. I also order that for failure to declare the gold in his possession,
      which involves contravention of gold control rules, I impose upon
      him a penalty of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty-five thousands only)
      under Rule 126-I(16) of the Gold Control Rules, 1962
      (Corresponding to Section 74 of the Gold Control Act, 1968)”
                                                                                 D
       2. Against the aforesaid order, an appeal was dismissed on
08.02.1971. Exercising suo motu powers under the Defence of India
Rules, a show cause notice dated 01.06.1971 was issued in which it was
sought to confiscate the items of gold and enhance penalty that had
been imposed. This show cause notice was challenged by the grand-
father of the present petitioner in a writ petition that was ultimately          E
dismissed by the Delhi High Court on 29.09.1972. This appeal is an
appeal from the aforesaid judgment. This Court, on 09.08.1973, passed
the following order:
      “Upon hearing the counsel for the parties, while counsel for
      Respondent No.3 waiving notice of motion, the Court directed               F
      stay of all further proceedings in pursuance of the impugned
      proceedings dated 01.06.1971 pending final disposal of this appeal.
      The Court allowed C.M.Ps. 3056 and 3058 of 1973”
       3. While the stay order of this Court continued, the Gold Control
Act itself was repealed.                                                         G
      This was effected by two sections, namely,:
      1. Short title.- This Act may be called the Gold (Control) Repeal
Act, 1990.
                                                                                 H
1150            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2018] 13 S.C.R.


 A           2. Repeal of Act 45 of 1968.- The Gold (Control) Act, 1968 is
       hereby repealed.
             The statement of objects and reasons for this Act is as follows:
             “Gold control which regulated the domestic trade and movement
             of gold within the country was introduced on 9th January, 1963 as
 B           part of the Defence of India Rules. Later on, the Gold Control
             Act, 1968 was enacted with the broad objectives of controlling
             the production, manufacture, supply, distribution, use and possession
             of and business in gold, ornaments and articles of gold. The said
             enactment was meant to supplement other preventive measures
 C           to make circulation of smuggled gold difficult and its detection
             easier by extending the control over gold beyond the stage of
             import.
             2. Over the past 22 years, the results achieved under the Act
             have not been encouraging and the desired objectives for which
 D           the Act was introduced have not been achieved due to various
             socio-economic and cultural factors in the vast multitude of the
             country’s population and the lack of administrative machinery.
             On the other hand, this regressive and purely regulatory Act has
             given rise to considerable dissatisfaction in the minds of the public
             as it has caused hardship and harassment to the artisans and small
 E           self-employed goldsmiths who have not been able to develop their
             skills and earn proper living on account of the rigours which this
             Act imposed upon them.
             3. Taking these factors into consideration and the advice of experts
             who have examined issues related to this Act, it is proposed to
 F           repeal the Gold (Control) Act, 1968.
             4. The Bill seeks to achieve the said object.”
              4. What has been argued by Mr. R. Venkataramani, learned senior
       counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, is that considering that the
       Gold Control Act itself has been repealed without a saving clause, Section
 G
       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. He relied strongly upon the objects and reasons
       using the expression “regressive” and the fact that it has given rise to

 H
    SUSHILA N. RUNGTA (D) LRS. v. THE TAX RECOVERY                                 1151
       OFFICER-16(2) AND ORS. [R. F. NARIMAN, J.]

considerable dissatisfaction in the minds of the public as it has caused           A
hardship and harassment to artisans and small self-employed goldsmiths.
Therefore, according to him, 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.
                                                                                   B
      5. On the other hand, Mr. Rupesh Kumar, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the Revenue, has taken us though the impugned
judgment and has argued 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 Punjab vs. Mohar Singh, [1955] 1 SCR 893,                    C
would apply.
       6. 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              D
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.                                       E
      7. 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. In this behalf, it would be apposite to refer to New India Assurance          F
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            G
that a different intention had been expressed and, therefore, Section 6-A
of the General Clauses Act would not in that situation apply.
      9. We find a similar situation in the present case. In point of fact,
on going through the impugned judgment, it is clear that every time an
                                                                                   H
1152            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2018] 13 S.C.R.


 A     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
 B
       Transport Corporation and Others, [1980] 1 SCR 684 following
       Director of Public Works & Anr. vs. Ho Po Sang & Ors., [1961] 2
       All. ER 721.
             10. This being the case, we are of the view that the show cause
       notice dated 01.06.1971, which is the subject matter of this appeal, no
 C     longer survives. In this view of the matter, the appeal is disposed of.
       CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10824 OF 2018 (@ SLP (C) No. 26686/2016)
       CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10830 OF 2018(@ SLP (C) No. 29640/2016)
       CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10829 OF 2018 (@ SLP (C) No. 29613/2016)
 D
       CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10831 OF 2018 (@ SLP (C) No. 29641/2016)
       CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10825 OF 2018 (@ SLP (C) No. 29552/2016)
       CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10833 OF 2018 (@ SLP (C) No. 29796/2016)
       CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10832 OF 2018(@ SLP (C) No. 29740/2016)
 E
       CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10826 OF 2018(@ SLP (C) No. 29559/2016)
       CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10827 OF 2018 (@ SLP (C) No. 29601/2016)
       CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10828 OF 2018 (@ SLP (C) No. 29602/2016)

 F           11. Leave granted.
              12. The impugned order records that owing to counsel not turning
       up in time, the reference of questions made under the Wealth Tax Act at
       that point of time would remain unanswered. 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
 G
       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.
 H
    SUSHILA N. RUNGTA (D) LRS. v. THE TAX RECOVERY                      1153
       OFFICER-16(2) AND ORS. [R. F. NARIMAN, J.]

     13. We, therefore, allow the appeals and set aside the common      A
impugned judgment of the High Court.


Devika Gujral                                        Appeals allowed.

                                                                        B




                                                                        C




                                                                        D




                                                                        E




                                                                        F




                                                                        G




                                                                        H