Case Law Details
Chandra Sekhar Jha Vs Union of India & Anr (Supreme Court of India)
The first proviso of Section 129E of the present Section enacts a limitation on the total amount which can be demanded by way of pre-deposit. The first proviso provides that the amount required to be deposited should not exceed Rs.10 Crores. In this regard, the law giver has purported to grant relief to an appellant. The second proviso contemplates that Section 129(e) as substituted would not apply to stay applications and appeals which are pending before the Appellate Authority prior to the commencement of the Finance Act (2) of 2014. The amended provision, as we have already noticed has come into force from 06.08.2014. Therefore, in regard to stay applications and appeals which were pending before any Appellate Authority prior to commencement of The Finance (No.2) Act 2014, Section 129E as substituted would not apply. Substitution of a provision results in repeal of the earlier provision and its replacement by the new provision.1
As far as the argument of the appellant that for the reason that the incident which triggered the appeal filed by the appellant took place in the year 2013, the appellant must be given the benefit of the power available under the substituted provision, it does not appeal to us. The substitution has effected a repeal and it has re-enacted the provision as it is contained in Section 129E. In fact, the acceptance of the argument would involve a dichotomy in law. On the one hand, what the appellant is called upon to pay is not the full amount as is contemplated in Section 129(E) before the substitution. The order passed by the Commissioner is dated 23.11.2015 which is after the substitution of Section 129E. The appellant filed the appeal in 2017. What the appellant is called upon to pay is the amount in terms of Section 129E after the substitution, namely, the far lesser amount in terms of the fixed percentage as provided in section 129E. The appellant, however, would wish to have the benefit of the proviso which, in fact, appropriately would apply only to a case where the appellant is maintaining the appeal and he is called upon to pay the full amount under Section 129E under the earlier avtar.
We would think that the legislative intention would clearly be to not to allow the appellant to avail the benefit of the discretionary power available under the proviso to the substituted provision under Section 129E. When the appellant is not being called upon to pay the full amount but is only asked to pay the amount which is fixed under the substituted provision, we do not find any merit in the contention of the appellant. However, in the interest of justice we extend the period for complying with Section 129E by a period of two months
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
