SHAILESH SHIVPRASAD KABRA vs. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANOTHER

PDF · subscribers
WP/9832/2022HC BombayHCBM03031789202201 March 2024Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAVINDRA V. GHUGE,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R. M. JOSHI2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashing and setting aside the impugned notice. The court's decision was restricted solely to the point of limitation. The reasoning was that the impugned notice for Assessment Year 2014-2015 was issued after the amendment to the Finance Act on 01.04.2021, and crucially, it was based on the provisions that existed prior to this amendment. The ratio decidendi is that notices for reopening assessments, especially for older assessment years, must be issued in accordance with the law prevailing at the time of issuance, and if issued after a statutory amendment that alters the basis or period for such notices, they may be invalidated if not compliant with the amended provisions or transitional rules. The operative direction was to quash and set aside the notice.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Shailesh Shivprasad Kabra, has filed a writ petition challenging an impugned notice. The respondents are the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and another. The assessment year in question is 2014-2015. The core issue is that the impugned notice was issued after the amendment to the Finance Act (effective from 01.04.2021) but was based on provisions that existed prior to this amendment. This writ petition is identical in its challenge to Writ Petition No. 9125/2022 (Bela Kishor Varma vs. The Principal Chief Commissioner, Income Tax and another), which was also decided on the same day.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned notice, issued for Assessment Year 2014-2015 after the amendment to the Finance Act on 01.04.2021, is valid when based on provisions existing prior to the amendment? (Question of law) The assessee's contention, as inferred from the judgment's reasoning, is that a notice issued under pre-amendment provisions after the amendment's effective date for an assessment year predating the amendment is invalid. The revenue's contentions are not explicitly recorded in the judgment. The judgment refers to the challenge being identical to a previous writ petition, implying the revenue likely argued for the validity of the notice, possibly by contending that the pre-amendment provisions were applicable or that the notice was issued within the time frame permitted by the relevant law at the time of issuance.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

*1* 9832o22 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 9832 OF 2022 SHAILESH SHIVPRASAD KABRA VERSUS THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANOTHER … Shri Raviraj R. Chandak, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri Alok Sharma, Advocate for the Respondents/ IT Department. ...

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE &

R.M. JOSHI, JJ. DATE :- 01st March, 2024 Per Court :- 1. We have heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties. 2. The challenge in this petition is identical to the challenge in Writ Petition No.9125/2022 (Bela Kishor Varma vs. The Principal Chief Commissioner, Income Tax and another), which we have decided today. 3. In this Writ Petition as well, it is undisputed that the impugned notice has been issued after the amendment to the Finance Act, on the basis of the provisions that existed before the 2024:BHC-AUG:4937-DB

*2* 9832o22 amendment and the said notice is in relation to the Assessment Year 2014-2015. 4. For the reasons recorded in the order passed today in Writ Petition No.9125/2022 (supra), this Writ Petition is allowed with the same directions as under:- (a) The impugned notice is quashed and set aside. (b) We record that this order is restricted only to the point of limitation since the impugned notice had been issued for the Assessment Year 2014-2015, after the amendment to the Finance Act on 01.04.2021, and that too under the provisions existing prior to the amendment to the Finance Act. kps ( R.M. JOSHI, J. ) ( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. )

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →