Judgment Govind Mathur, J.-By the writ petition a challenge is given by the petitioner to proposal to launch prosecution under Sec. 276-B of Income Tax Act 1961 for failure on part of petitioner to deduct tax at source in terms of Sec. 194-A of the Act of 1961. Notices impugned are placed on record as Annex. 13, 14 and 15 all dated 27.3.1991. An amendment was introduced to Sec. 276-B of the Act of 1961 which came into force on 4.1989. Sec. 276-B as it was prior to 4.1989 reads as under :- "276 B. Failure to deduct or pay tax. If a person, fails to deduct or after deducting, fails to pay the tax as required by or under the provisions of Sub-sec.(9) of Sec. 80-E or Chapter XVII-B, he shall be punishable- (a) ina case where the amount of tax which he has failed to deduct or pay exceeds one hundred thousand rupees, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to seven years and with fine; (b) in any other case, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three months but which may extend to three years and with fine." 2.As a consequence of amendment to Sec. 276-B words, "failure to deduct" were deleted and Sec. 276 -A after amendment reads as under :-"276B. Failure to pay the tax deducted at source. If a person fails to pay to the credit of the Central Government, the tax deducted at source by him as required by or under the provisions Chapter XVII-B he shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for term which shall not be less than three months but which may extend to seven years and with fine." 3. It is stated by the counsel for the petitioner that omission of the words " failure to deduct" shows that legislature wants to ignore trivial offences like failure to deduct tax at source and therefore, the petitioner is not liable for prosecution as launched by the impugned notices. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is fortified by Division Benchs Judgment of this Court in the case of Anantraj Joshi & Co. & Ors. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors., reported in 2002 (178) CTR 299. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Anantraj Joshi & Co. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is fortified by Division Benchs Judgment of this Court in the case of Anantraj Joshi & Co. & Ors. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors., reported in 2002 (178) CTR 299. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Anantraj Joshi & Co. & Ors. (Supra) while relying upon the Judgment of Honble Apex Court held as under: "4. Section 271 deals with consequential failure to furnish returns, comply with notices and concealment of income, etc. Sub-clause (1) (a) as it stood prior to 1989 is extracted as follows: "(a) has failed to furnish the return of total income which he was required to furnish under Sub-sec. (1) ofSec. 39 or by notice given under Sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 139 or Sec. 148 or has failed to furnish it within the time allowed and in the manner required by Sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 139 or by such notice as the case may be, or" The Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1989, omitted the aforesaid provision w.e.f. Ist April, 1989. It is significant to notice that the omission of a provision results into an abrogation or obliteration of the omitted provision. The effect of omission in the present context is that the prosecution with respect to an offence of the year 1982-83 cannot be continued. This view has been taken by the apex Court in the case of General Finance Co. 5. In view of the aforesaid, we allow this special appeal and set aside the Judgment of the learned Single Judge. The writ petition is allowed and the complaint Nos. 160/1986 and 161/1986 pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic offences) Rajasthan, Jaipur is quashed." 4. The Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Income Tax Department does not dispute the position. Looking to the law laid down by the Division Bench the impugned proposal to launch prosecution under the notices dated 27.3.1991 Annex. 13, 14 and 15 is hereby quashed. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.