GENERAL FINANCE COMPANY Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PUNJAB
LAWS(SC)-2002-8-104
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on
August 04,2002
GENERAL FINANCE COMPANY
Appellant
VERSUS
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
RAYALA CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED VS. DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT NEW DELHI [REFERRED]KOLHAPUR CANESUGAR WORKS LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED]
Cited Judgements :-
NEERA CHEMICALS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA UOI [LAWS(ALL)-2004-7-7] [REFERRED TO]EMPLOYEES MANAGEMENT OF BHULI TOWNSHIP ADMINISTRATION OF BCC LIMITED VS. PO CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL II [LAWS(JHAR)-2003-9-16] [RELIED ON]
YUNMAN LOKENDRO SINGH VS. STATE OF MANIPUR [LAWS(GAU)-2010-2-25] [REFERRED TO]
NARENDRAKUMAR KHANDELWAL VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MPH)-2002-11-32] [REFERRED TO]
KOTHARI AND COMPANY VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [LAWS(MPH)-2006-4-40] [REFERRED TO]
ASHWANI KUMAR TANDON VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2006-10-19] [REFERRED TO]
A B SHANTHI ALIAS VENNIRADAI NIRMALA VS. ASST DIRECTOR OF INSPECTION INVESTIGATION O/O THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INVESTIGATION INCOME TAX OFFICE NUNGAMBAKKAM HIGH ROAD CHENNAI 34 [LAWS(MAD)-2007-6-126] [REFERRED TO]
T R MEHRA OF MUMBAI INDIAN INHABITANT VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-2007-4-31] [REFERRED TO]
A SHENOY AND CO VS. N D KADAM [LAWS(BOM)-2007-8-24] [REFERRED TO]
BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LTD VS. MAHARASHTRA GENERAL KAMGAR UNION [LAWS(BOM)-2009-4-190] [REFERRED TO]
BRITANIA INDUSTRIES LTD VS. MAHARASHTRA GENERAL KAMGAR UNION [LAWS(BOM)-2009-4-148] [REFERRED TO]
ANANTRAI JOSHI AND CO VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [LAWS(RAJ)-2002-11-16] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA PROCESSORS VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GJH)-2012-3-125] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. AIMIL LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-2009-12-222] [REFERRED TO]
AMBAY FORGINGS PVT LTD VS. COMMISSIONER OF CEN EXCISE [LAWS(CE)-2006-7-13] [REFERRED TO]
SHREE BHAGWATI STEEL ROLLING MILLS VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE [LAWS(P&H)-2006-10-518] [REFERRED TO]
NARESH KUMAR & CO. PVT.LTD VS. COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE & SERVICE TAX [LAWS(ALL)-2014-5-48] [REFERRED TO]
Commissioner of Income Tax VS. Sabari Enterprises [LAWS(KAR)-2007-7-91] [REFERRED]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. GEORGE WILLIAMSON (ASSAM) LTD. [LAWS(GAU)-2006-6-84] [REFERRED TO]
CHETAN DAS VS. D C S C [LAWS(ALL)-2015-3-20] [REFERRED TO]
S.C. KUMAR VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2014-8-292] [REFERRED TO]
NIRANJAN ALLOYS STEEL P. LTD. VS. COMMR. OF C. EX. & CUS., AURANGABAD [LAWS(BOM)-2011-10-161] [REFERRED TO]
CHETAN DAS VS. DEPUTY CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-3-230] [REFERRED TO]
FIBRE BOARDS (P) LTD., BANGALORE VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE [LAWS(SC)-2015-8-20] [REFERRED TO]
B. ASHOK VS. THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF UNION LAW AND JUSTICE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2015-8-15] [REFERRED TO]
SHIAVAK RATANSHAW VAKIL VS. MAHARASHTRA SALES TAX [LAWS(BOM)-2007-1-166] [REFERRED TO]
V K MEHRA OF MUMBAUI INDIAN INHABITANT VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS [LAWS(BOM)-2007-4-301] [REFERRED]
K S ABDUL RASHID VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS [LAWS(MAD)-2013-8-227] [REFERRED]
NANKACHI ENTERPRISES, VS. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT AND ORS [LAWS(MAD)-2013-9-357] [REFERRED]
THALAPATHI PARTHIBAN VS. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER [LAWS(MAD)-2013-7-389] [REFERRED]
COMMR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BELGAUM VS. BELLARY STEEL ROLLING MILLS [LAWS(KAR)-2008-4-43] [REFERRED]
HIGH POINT HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER IN KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2017-8-86] [REFERRED TO]
K SRIDHARAN VS. EXCISE COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONERATE OF EXCISE [LAWS(KER)-2018-10-168] [REFERRED TO]
K. SRIDHARAN AND OTHERS VS. EXCISE COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONERATE OF EXCISE AND OTHERS [LAWS(KER)-2018-10-250] [REFERRED TO]
LAXMI NARAYAN SAHU VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GAU)-2018-12-94] [REFERRED TO]
S.MURUKESAN VS. R.GUNASEELAN [LAWS(MAD)-2019-3-283] [REFERRED TO]
B. V. MALLA REDDY VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2019-9-57] [REFERRED TO]
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY VS. HARIDAS P. RAVINDRAN [LAWS(KER)-2020-2-308] [REFERRED TO]
REGIONAL DIRECTOR VS. TINU KURIAKOSE [LAWS(KER)-2020-7-158] [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL SAMAD V. T. VS. VALANCHERY MUNICIPALITY [LAWS(KER)-2020-2-375] [REFERRED TO]
K.R.RAMESH VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [LAWS(KER)-2020-6-236] [REFERRED TO]
K.R.RAMESH VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [LAWS(KER)-2020-6-236] [REFERRED TO]
K.R.RAMESH VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [LAWS(KER)-2020-6-236] [REFERRED TO]
K. KRISHNA MURTHY VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2019-12-223] [REFERRED TO]
CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION VS. ABDUL SHAHEEN.P [LAWS(KER)-2020-11-144] [REFERRED TO]
SREE SANKARA VIDYAPEETOM COLLEGE, SREESANKARAPURAM AND ORS. VS. AKHIL P.K. AND ORS. [LAWS(KER)-2019-11-526] [REFERRED TO]
INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT VS. D. K. SHIVAKUMAR [LAWS(KAR)-2021-4-13] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
Rajendra Babu, J. -
(1.)The appellants before us received deposits from Amar Singh, Gurdev Singh and Hardev Singh on different dates in the year 1985 and this fact was disclosed in the Income-tax Return filed for the assessment year 1986-87. The Income-tax Department initiated prosecution against the appellants for offences arising from non-compliance with Section 269-SS of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Section 269-SS of the Act provides that 'no person shall take or accept from any other person any loan or deposit otherwise than by an account-payee cheque or account-payee bank draft which exceeds Rs. 10 thousand' (now 20 thousand). Punishment for non-compliance with provisions of Section 269-SS is provided under Section 276-DD of the Act. In addition, penalty is leviable under Section 271-D of the Act. Section 276-DD has been omitted from the Act by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987 with effect from 1-4-1989. A complaint under Section 276-DD of the Act was filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur on 31-3-1989.
(2.)The appellants sought for quashing of the proceeding for prosecution under Section 276-DD of the Act by filing a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 227 of the Constitution. The High Court held that the provisions of the Act under which the appellants had been prosecuted were in force during the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1986-87 and they stood omitted from the statute book only from 1-4-1989. The High Court, therefore, took the view that the prosecution was justified and dismissed the writ petition. Hence, this appeal by special leave.
(3.)The contention put forth on behalf of the appellants is that the offence, if at all, had been committed in the year 1985 prosecution could not be continued nor could the punishment be imposed under Section 276-DD of the Act after it was omitted on and from 1-4-1989. Section of the General Clauses Act cannot also be applied to save the action now taken.
(2.)The appellants sought for quashing of the proceeding for prosecution under Section 276-DD of the Act by filing a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 227 of the Constitution. The High Court held that the provisions of the Act under which the appellants had been prosecuted were in force during the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1986-87 and they stood omitted from the statute book only from 1-4-1989. The High Court, therefore, took the view that the prosecution was justified and dismissed the writ petition. Hence, this appeal by special leave.
(3.)The contention put forth on behalf of the appellants is that the offence, if at all, had been committed in the year 1985 prosecution could not be continued nor could the punishment be imposed under Section 276-DD of the Act after it was omitted on and from 1-4-1989. Section of the General Clauses Act cannot also be applied to save the action now taken.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.