Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

If a person availed of that exemption without production of form-C in respect of transactions after the 2002 amendment, he is liable for such action as may be permissible by law which includes section 28(1) of the Act.

Petitioner then relied upon clause 6 of the General Clauses Act 1897. That section enumerates effect of repeal of a legislation, in respect of actions taken under the repealed enactment. Obviously it has no application to this case in view of what has already been discussed above. The amendment of 2002 has not repealed anything, it has merely prescribed additional requirement in respect of transactions done after that amendment. It is not altering the situation in respect of the transactions done under the un-amended section. The reliance placed upon paragraph 23 of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Parle Biscuits (P) Ltd V. State of Bihar and others (2005) 9 SCC 669 for the proposition that generally there is no real distinction between repeal and an amendment, is therefore of no relevance.