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

Citation: [2018] 13 S.C.R. 1147 · Decided: 30-10-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.F. NARIMAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1147
SUSHILA N. RUNGTA (D) LRS.
v.
THE TAX RECOVERY OFFICER-16(2) AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 10824 of 2018)
OCTOBER 30, 2018
[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,
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.
[2018] 13  S.C.R. 1147
1147
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1148
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 13  S.C.R.
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
[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
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
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.
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.
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 Gold to the Bank,
as it was not in his possession at that time.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1149
18. While intention to invest the gold in gold bonds is conceded
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.
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.
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)”
2. Against the 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.