HEMRAJ Vs. TAX RECOVERY OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the annuity deposit is not recoverable from the petitioner in view of the subsequent amendment made by the Finance Act, No. 13 of 1966, passed on May 13, 1966. THE submission, of the learned counsel is that after the amendment the power to make recovery no more survives in the department in view of the amendment of Section 156 and omission of Sections 280K, 280R and 280T with effect from April 1, 1967.

(2.) THE argument of the learned counsel is that the amendment is rather of a retrospective character and no recovery can be made after the coming into force of the amendments introduced by the Finance Act of 1966. Learned counsel has further submitted that Section 6 of the General Clauses Act cannot be attracted while interpreting the above provisions. We are afraid the contention raised by the learned counsel is not correct. THE point raised before us is squarely covered by J.K.K. Angappan v. ITO [1974] 94 ITR 397 (Mad) and C. Doraiswamy v. TRO [1975] 99 ITR 494 (Mad). Mr. Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioner, says that the propositions laid down in these cases do not lay down good law, as these cases have been decided with reference to Section 6 of the General Clauses Act which according to him are not attracted in the present case. In this connection, he has drawn our attention to CIT v. Maharaja Pratapsingh Bahadur [1961] 41 ITR 421 (SC) and Rayala Corporation P. Ltd. v. Director of Enforcement, AIR 1970 SC 494. We have gone through these cases. CIT v. Maharaja Pratapsingh Bahadur [1961] 41 ITR 421 (SC) is of no avail to the learned counsel for the petitioner because, there, the Act was brought into force by deeming provisions from an anterior date which carried clearly the character of retrospectivity. As regards Rayala Corporation P. Ltd. v. Director of Enforcement, AIR 1970 SC 494, that case has been considered in J.K.K. Angappan v. ITO [1974] 94 ITR 397 by the Madras High Court. It is true that in Rayala Corporation P. Ltd. v. Director of Enforcement, AIR 1970 SC 494, their Lordships have observed that Section 6 of the General Clauses Act cannot obviously apply in regard to the omission of Rule 132-A of the Defence of India Rules for two reasons: Section 6 only applies to repeals and not to omissions and applies when the repeal is of only the Act or Regulation and not of a Rule. That case related to the prosecution under criminal offences under the Defence of India Rules and, in our opinion, is distinguishable as its ratio is confined to the facts of that case only as observed in J.K.K. Angappan v. ITO [1974] 94 ITR 397 (Mad). THE liability for payment of annuity in the present case has accrued prior to April 1, 1967, and that liability cannot be washed away by the simple omission of the provisions which, in our opinion, are not of retrospective operation. THE liability to pay annuity deposit being a present and existing liability even on April 1, 1967, the date on which the provisions relating to annuity deposit were omitted from the I.T. Act, 1961, in our opinion, should be enforced even after that date notwithstanding the said omission. If we view the said omission with reference to Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, Section 6 will be attracted unless there is an intention to the contrary.