https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460553 The omission of Clause 5A and the Second Schedule from the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966 by the 2009 amendment was treated as prospective because no clear legislative intention appeared to extinguish rights already accrued under the earlier regime. The Court applied the principle that omission, repeal and deletion are functionally equivalent for interpretation, but held that vested statutory entitlements arising on supply of sugarcane could not be destroyed after they had crystallized. The absence of a saving clause did not defeat those accrued claims, so the growers' entitlement under the pre-amendment price mechanism remained preserved for the relevant period. en-us Thu, 19 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 31 Jan 2025 18:56:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460553 The omission of Clause 5A and the Second Schedule from the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966 by the 2009 amendment was treated as prospective because no clear legislative intention appeared to extinguish rights already accrued under the earlier regime. The Court applied the principle that omission, repeal and deletion are functionally equivalent for interpretation, but held that vested statutory entitlements arising on supply of sugarcane could not be destroyed after they had crystallized. The absence of a saving clause did not defeat those accrued claims, so the growers' entitlement under the pre-amendment price mechanism remained preserved for the relevant period. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 19 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460553