REPORTABLE IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10824 OF 2018 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 26686/2016) SUSHILA N. RUNGTA (D) THR. LRS. Appellant(s) VERSUS TAX RECOVERY OFFICER-16(2) AND ORS. Respondent(s) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10830 OF 2018 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 29640/2016) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10829 OF 2018 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 29613/2016) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10831 OF 2018 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 29641/2016) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10825 OF 2018 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 29552/2016) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10833 OF 2018 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 29796/2016) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10832 OF 2018 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 29740/2016) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10826 OF 2018 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 29559/2016) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10827 OF 2018 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 29601/2016) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10828 OF 2018 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 29602/2016) Signature Not Verified C.A. No. 723/1973 Digitally signed by R NATARAJAN Date: 2018.11.02 16:40:06 IST Reason: 2 J U D G M E N T R.F. Nariman, J. Civil Appeal No. 723/1973: 1) In this appeal, order dated 03.01.1970 was passed by Collector of Central Excise in which, it was ordered as follows:- 17. In view of above-mentioned facts, party charged is entitled to benefit of amnesty granted by Government. Even though he had initially failed to declare gold, time was available to him up to 31.5.66 to invest gold into gold bonds and his intentions would have materialised but for fact that seizure of gold prevented him from tendering Gold to Bank, as it was not in his possession at that time. 18. While intention to invest gold in gold bonds is conceded failure to declare was, no doubt, there. He was required by law to declare his gold to Government. Since he did not declare this gold, even though he is given benefit of gold bond scheme, he has rendered himself liable to punishment for not declaring his gold, at appropriate time, as required by law. 19. Considering all facts and circumstances of case and weighing merits of evidence available on record, I order that gold shall be released to party charged for invest in gold bond in pursuance of application tendered by him 3 to State Bank of Indore in 1965. 20. I also order that for failure to declare gold in his possession, which involves contravention of gold control rules, I impose upon him penalty of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty-five thousands only) under Rule 126-I(16) of Gold Control Rules, 1962 (Corresponding to Section 74 of Gold Control Act, 1968) 2) Against aforesaid order, appeal was dismissed on 08.02.1971. Exercising suo motu powers under Defence of India Rules, show cause notice dated 01.06.1971 was issued in which it was sought to confiscate items of gold and enhance penalty that had been imposed. This show cause notice was challenged by grand-father of present petitioner in writ petition that was ultimately dismissed by Delhi High Court on 29.09.1972. This appeal is appeal from aforesaid judgment. This Court, on 09.08.1973, passed following order: Upon hearing counsel for parties, while counsel for Respondent No.3 waiving notice of motion, Court directed stay of all further proceedings in pursuance of impugned proceedings dated 01.06.1971 pending final disposal of this appeal. Court allowed C.M.Ps. 3056 and 3058 of 1973 3) While stay order of this Court continued, Gold Control Act itself was repealed. 4 This was effected by two sections, namely,: 1. Short title.- This Act may be called Gold (Control) Repeal Act, 1990. 2. Repeal of Act 45 of 1968.- Gold (Control) Act, 1968 is hereby repealed. statement of objects and reasons for this Act is as follows: Gold control which regulated domestic trade and movement of gold within country was introduced on 9th January, 1963 as part of Defence of India Rules. Later on, Gold Control Act, 1968 was enacted with broad objectives of controlling production, manufacture, supply, distribution, use and possession of and business in gold, ornaments and articles of gold. said enactment was meant to supplement other preventive measures to make circulation of smuggled gold difficult and its detection easier by extending control over gold beyond stage of import. 2. Over past 22 years, results achieved under Act have not been encouraging and desired objectives for which Act was introduced have not been achieved due to various socio-economic and cultural factors in vast multitude of country s population and lack of administrative machinery. On other hand, this regressive and purely regulatory Act has given rise to considerable dissatisfaction in minds of public as it has caused hardship and harassment to artisans and small self-employed goldsmiths who have not 5 been able to develop their skills and earn proper living on account of rigours which this Act imposed upon them. 3. Taking these factors into consideration and advice of experts who have examined issues related to this Act, it is proposed to repeal Gold (Control) Act, 1968. 4. Bill seeks to achieve said object. 4) What has been argued by Mr. R. Venkataramani, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of appellant, is that considering that Gold Control Act itself has been repealed without saving clause, Section 6 of General Clauses Act would not apply for reason that objects and reasons show that Act was sought to be repealed without any saving clause. He relied strongly upon objects and reasons using expression regressive and fact that it has given rise to considerable dissatisfaction in minds of public as it has caused hardship and harassment to artisans and small self-employed goldsmiths. Therefore, according to him, statement of objects and reasons clearly evinces contrary intention as result of which, nothing will survive repeal of this Act. This being so, show cause notice which has been upheld by Delhi High Court would not survive. 5) On other hand, Mr. Rupesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Revenue, has taken us though impugned judgment and has argued that once there is repeal 6 simpliciter, without any savings clause, whole object of such repeal was so that general rule under Section 6 would apply, as result of which law laid down in State of Punjab vs. Mohar Singh, [1955] 1 SCR 893, would apply. 6) Having heard learned counsel for both sides, we are of view that statement of objects and reasons makes it clear that over 22 years, results achieved under Act have not been encouraging and desired objectives for which Act has been introduced have failed. Following advice of experts, who have examined issues related to Act, objects and reasons goes on further to state that this Act has proved to be regressive measure which has caused considerable dissatisfaction in minds of public and hardship and harassment to artisans and small self-employed goldsmiths. 7) This being case, we are of opinion that repeal simpliciter, in present case, does not attract provisions of Section 6 of General Clauses Act as contrary intention is very clearly expressed in statement of objects and reasons to 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 parallel instance of simpliciter repeal, Parliament realized grave injustice 7 and injury that had been caused to heirs of LRs of victims of accidents if their petitions were rejected only on ground of limitation. This being case, this Court found that different intention had been expressed and, therefore, Section 6-A of General Clauses Act would not in that situation apply. 9) We find similar situation in present case. In point of fact, on going through impugned judgment, it is clear that every time amendment was made to Defence of India Rules and/or repeal of said rules had taken place, there was always inbuilt savings clause. In fact, Section 116 of Gold (Control) Ordinance No.6 of 1968 also made it clear that it went to 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. 10) This being case, we are of view that show cause notice dated 01.06.1971, which is subject matter of this appeal, no longer survives. In this view of matter, 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) 8 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) 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) 11) Leave granted. 12) impugned order records that owing to counsel not turning up in time, reference of questions made under Wealth Tax Act at that point of time would remain unanswered. Given fact that show cause notice and proceedings thereafter have now disappeared as result of repeal of Gold Control Act, we give liberty to both parties to add to or amend or delete questions in Wealth Tax Reference within period of eight weeks from today. Once this is done, writ petitions will taken up and decided on their merits. Considering these writ petitions are of 2005, we request High Court to hear same expeditiously. 13) We, therefore, allow appeals and set aside common impugned judgment of High Court. .......................... J. (ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN) .......................... J. (NAVIN SINHA) New Delhi; October 30, 2018. Sushila N. Rungta v. Tax Recovery Officer-16(2) and Or