https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=24974 Substitution of section 53 of the Karnataka Agricultural Income-tax Act by Act 29 of 1976 was treated as replacing the earlier provision in full, so the amended text governed pending matters. Because the new wording omitted the word "court" from the confidentiality bar, section 6 of the General Clauses Act did not preserve the earlier restriction in the same way as a repeal. On that construction, the civil court was not excluded from summoning returns, documents and assessment records from the agricultural income-tax authorities unless a privilege in public interest was specifically claimed. The substituted provision therefore left the civil court's power to require production intact in the absence of pleaded privilege. en-us Wed, 13 Apr 1988 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 23 Jan 2010 14:26:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=24974 Substitution of section 53 of the Karnataka Agricultural Income-tax Act by Act 29 of 1976 was treated as replacing the earlier provision in full, so the amended text governed pending matters. Because the new wording omitted the word "court" from the confidentiality bar, section 6 of the General Clauses Act did not preserve the earlier restriction in the same way as a repeal. On that construction, the civil court was not excluded from summoning returns, documents and assessment records from the agricultural income-tax authorities unless a privilege in public interest was specifically claimed. The substituted provision therefore left the civil court's power to require production intact in the absence of pleaded privilege. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 13 Apr 1988 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=24974