Repeal of law

2024 PLD 60 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Art. 264General Clauses Act (X of 1897), S. 6Repeal of lawRetrospective effectScope

Matters relating to investigation/inquiry/ trial/receiving of evidence are procedural and a new legal dispensation on the eve of omission/replacement of old legal dispensation may operate retrospectively.

2024 PLD 60 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 6Criminal trialRepeal of lawPending proceedingsEffect

All investigations or proceedings which are contemplated are to continue as if the Repealing Act or Regulation had not been passed

Trial of criminal case has to be in accordance with rules of procedure in force at the commencement of the trial and the same procedure has to be followed.

2022 PTD 812 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S.6Repeal of lawPrinciple

Where Federal law is struck-down by High Court of one Province and is not struck-down or is held valid by High Court of another Province, and in the meantime the Legislature or Federal authority concerned complies with the judgment of first High Court and makes necessary amends or withdraws the law, the effect of that amendment or withdrawal in the other Province would be that of "repeal"

Consequences of which are then set out in S.6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897.

2020 PLD 293 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

Arts. 89 & 264Repeal of law

Ordinance which expired upon lapse of four months from the date of its promulgation without having been approved by Parliament would be considered to have been repealed.

2019 PTD 1414 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 2(1)(c), 3 & 5Finance Act (IX of 2014), S. 10Income Support Levy Rules, 2013, Rr. 3, 4 & 6Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), Ss. 2(38-A), 209 & 210Repeal of lawAbsence of saving clauseEffectTaxpayers were aggrieved of demand notices issued for recovery of Income Support Levy

Plea raised by taxpayers was that Finance Act, 2014 had repealed Income Support Levy Act, 2013 causing same to be ceased to be part of body of law, therefore, no demand of levy could be raised on basis of a dead statute

Validity

Any officer of Inland Revenue, to whom any power or function was delegated under S. 210 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 could also additionally exercise such powers and functions under provisions of Income Support Levy Act, 2013

Officer of Inland Revenue as defined in S. 2(1)(c) of Income Support Levy Act, 2013 read with S.2(38-A) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 could exercise powers under S. 5 of Income Support Levy Act, 2013, independently and without waiting specific delegation under S.210 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

Provisions of Income Support Levy Act, 2013 and Income Support Levy Rules, 2013 adequately catered for payment of levy, computation thereof, time and manner of payment

Taxpayers failed to make out any case of procedural impropriety, lack of unfairness or absence of opportunity of hearing

Objections were solicited from taxpayers who chose to challenge demand notices before High Court by invoking Constitutional jurisdiction

Taxpayers in cases where no orders were passed, could raise objections and same could be examined and decided by Officer of Inland Revenue except question of absence/want of jurisdiction

Irrespective of repeal of Income Support Levy Act, 2013, liability to pay levy subsisted with Officer of Inland Revenue who had rightly issued notices as he had jurisdiction to issue notices, assess payment of levy in accordance with rate prescribed and such officer could collect same accordingly

Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.

2015 PTD 2368 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Art. 264-General Clauses Act (X of 1897) S. 6Repeal of law­EffectScope and purpose of Art. 264 of the Constitution

Once a vested right accrued in favour of a party under a statute, and if that statute was subsequently repealed, such right could not be disregarded

Purpose of Art. 264 of the Constitution and S. 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 was to provide protection to rights and liabilities accrued and penalties incurred under repealed enactment

In absence of a stipulation to the contrary, any change in law affecting substantive rights had to have a prospective effect.

2013 SCMR 314 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 6 & 6ARepeal of lawProspective applicationScopeRight of partiesEffect

Change in substantive law, which divested and adversely affected the vested rights of the parties should always have prospective application, unless by express word of the legislation and/or by necessary intendment/implication such law had been made applicable retrospectively

Vested and substantive rights of parties should be decided according to the law which was prevalent when the action was initiated and the door of the court was knocked; and/or machinery (of the court) was set in motion.