Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.28 seconds)Section 24 in The Right to Information Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
Section 138 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 22 in The Right to Information Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
Chandra Prakash Tiwari And Ors vs Shakuntala Shukla And Ors on 9 May, 2002
37. A special enactment or Rule, therefore, cannot be held to be
overridden by a later general enactment or simply because the latter
opens up with a nonobstante clause unless there is clear inconsistency
between the two legislations -- one which is later in order of time and
the other which is a special enactment. This issue came again for
consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court in Chandra Prakash
Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla -- AIR 2002 SC 2322 and the Hon'ble
Supreme Court quoted with approval the Broom's Legal Maxim in
reference to two Latin Maxims in the following words: "It is then, an
elementary Rule that an earlier Act must give place to a later, if the two
cannot be reconciled - lex posterior derogate priori - non est novum ut
priores leges ad posteriors trahantur (Emphasis supplied) - and one Act
Page 8 of 9
may repeal another by express words or by implication; for it is enough
if there be words which by necessary implication repeal it. But repeal by
implication is never to be favoured, and must not be imputed to the
legislature without necessity, or strong reason, to be shown by the party
imputing it. It is only effected where the provisions of the later
enactment are so inconsistent with, or repugnant to, those of the earlier
that the two cannot stand together2; unless the two Acts are so plainly
repugnant to each other that effect cannot be given to both at the same
time a repeal cannot be implied; and special Acts are not repealed by
general Acts unless there be some express reference to the previous
legislation, or a necessary inconsistency in the two Acts standing
together, which prevents the maxim generalia specialibus non derogant
(Emphasis supplied) from being applied. For where there are general
words in a later Act capable of reasonable application without being
extended to subjects specially dealt with by earlier legislation, then, in
the absence of an indication of a particular intention to that effect, the
presumption is that the general words were not intended to repeal the
earlier and special legislation, or to take away a particular privilege of
a particular class of persons."
Section 132 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Pradeep Goyal vs Union Of India on 18 July, 2022
Upon examination of the facts of the case, the Commission finds no infirmity in
the reply sent by the Respondent. It is well settled position that DGIT (Inv.) is
an organization exempted under Section 24 of the RTI Act and therefore,
cannot be directed to furnish information under the Act provided that the
information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human rights violation.
Further the fact of instant case is different from the circumstances of case
cited by the Appellant in Pradeep Goyal vs. Union of India [2022] 141 taxmann.com
64 (SC) and ration laid down by the Court are not applicable to the instant case.
Moreover, the Respondent has not resorted to blanket denial by resorting to Section
24 and instead he has provided information/response giving due explanation.
Chief Information Commissioner vs High Court Of Gujarat on 4 March, 2020
In Chief Information Commr. v. High Court of Gujarat,(2020) 4 SCC 702,
when an issue was raised over furnishing of information of certified copies
obtained from the High Court of Gujarat by invoking the provisions of the RTI
Act, the Apex Court, while resorting to the Gujarat High Court Rules, has
observed as under:
Gajendra R. Raval vs The Director Genreal Of Incom Tax ... on 20 January, 2006
19. The issue raised herein has been settled by a Bench of three Member Bench
of the CIC which, in the opinion of this Court, is binding on the Bench which
has passed the impugned order. A Bench of three Commissioners of the CIC in
G.R. Rawal v. Director General of Income Tax (Investigation), 2008 SCC
OnLine CIC 1008, while considering the very same issue has observed as
under:
Mr.Rakesh Kumar Gupta vs Itat on 22 June, 2010
"15. Thus, both the Right to Information Act, 2005 and Section 138 of
the Income Tax Act, 1961 deal with disclosure of information. While
Right to Information Act is a general law concerning the disclosure of
information by the public authorities, Section 138 of the Income Tax Act
is a special legislation dealing with disclosure of information
concerning the assesses. This Commission in "Rakesh Kumar Gupta v.
ITAT, decided on 18th September, 2007 decided by a Full Bench, has
dealt with the issue of applicability of special law to the exclusion of the
general law.