Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Appeal dismissed as new law applies, reducing punishment and benefiting accused.</h1> <h3>T. BARAI Versus HENRY AH HOE AND ANOTHER</h3> T. BARAI Versus HENRY AH HOE AND ANOTHER - 1983 SCC (1) 177, 1983 AIR 150 Issues Involved:1. Whether the Central Amendment Act impliedly repealed the West Bengal Amendment Act with effect from April 1, 1976.2. Whether the High Court was justified in holding that the West Bengal Amendment Act shall be deemed to have been obliterated from the Statute Book for all intents and purposes.3. Whether the pending proceedings are to be governed by the change of procedure brought about by Section 16A of the Act as introduced by the Central Amendment Act, and whether the continued operation of the repealed West Bengal Amendment Act is preserved with regard to the punishment to be imposed.Detailed Analysis:1. Implied Repeal by the Central Amendment Act:The court examined whether the Central Amendment Act, which came into force on April 1, 1976, impliedly repealed the West Bengal Amendment Act. The West Bengal Amendment Act had increased the punishment for food adulteration offenses to life imprisonment, making such offenses triable by the Court of Sessions. The Central Amendment Act, however, altered the punishment provisions and introduced Section 16A, providing for summary trials by a Judicial Magistrate of the first class or a Metropolitan Magistrate. The court concluded that the Central Amendment Act impliedly repealed the West Bengal Amendment Act due to the repugnancy between the two laws under Article 254(1) of the Constitution. The Central Act, being a later law made by Parliament 'with respect to the same matter,' prevailed over the State law.2. High Court's Justification:The High Court held that the West Bengal Amendment Act was obliterated from the Statute Book for all intents and purposes once the Central Amendment Act came into force. The court agreed with this view, stating that the Central Amendment Act manifested an intention to exclude the operation of Section 8 of the Bengal General Clauses Act, 1899. The court noted that when Parliament enacts a law on the same subject matter, the State law becomes void to the extent of its repugnancy. The court cited the case of Zaverbai Amaidas v. The State of Bombay to illustrate the application of Article 254(2), where a State law, although initially valid due to Presidential assent, was later impliedly repealed by a subsequent Central law.3. Applicability of Section 16A and Preservation of Punishment:The court addressed whether the pending proceedings should be governed by the new procedure under Section 16A of the Central Amendment Act and whether the punishment provisions of the repealed West Bengal Amendment Act were preserved. The court emphasized that the Central Amendment Act reduced the punishment for offenses under Section 16(1)(a) and provided for summary trials. The court rejected the argument that Section 16A was not retrospective and that the old procedure and punishment should apply. It held that the rule of beneficial construction required that even ex post facto laws that mitigate the rigour of the law should be applied. The court referred to the case of Rattan Lal v. The State of Punjab, where the benefit of a new law reducing punishment was extended to pending cases. The court concluded that the accused should have the benefit of the reduced punishment under the Central Amendment Act.Conclusion:The appeal was dismissed, affirming the High Court's decision that the Central Amendment Act impliedly repealed the West Bengal Amendment Act and that the pending proceedings should be governed by the new procedure and reduced punishment provisions of the Central Amendment Act. The court clarified that the Central Amendment Act did not have retrospective operation insofar as it created new offenses or provided for enhanced punishment.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found