RANVIR SINGH AND ORS vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CWP/25902/2021HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01119933202111 October 2023Bench: MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI,MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashing the notices dated December 29, 2020, December 26, 2020, and September 28, 2020, issued to the petitioners. The Court's decision was based on the Supreme Court's judgment in Union of India vs. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd., which held that the provisions of the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016, being punitive in nature, could only be applied prospectively and not retroactively. The High Court found that the present petition was squarely covered by this Supreme Court ruling. The Court clarified that the respondent (revenue) would be entitled to seek revival of the petition if a review petition filed by the respondent in the Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. case is allowed by the Supreme Court. No other issues were expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioners, Ranvir Singh and others, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana challenging the vires of the Prohibition of Benami Transaction Act, 1988, as amended by the 2016 Amendment Act. They contended that the amendment could not be applied retrospectively. The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus and certiorari to declare the retrospective operation of the 2016 amendment invalid and to quash several notices issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, dated between September 28, 2020, and December 29, 2020. The case was taken up for final disposal with the consent of both parties.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the provisions of the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016, can be applied retrospectively, particularly in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India vs. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. (2022 SCC Online SC 1064)? (Question of law) Contentions: Assessee: The petitioners argued that the 2016 amendment to the Benami Act, specifically Section 5, is punitive and cannot be applied retrospectively. They relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Union of India vs. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd., which declared certain provisions of the un-amended Benami Act unconstitutional and held that the 2016 amendment's provisions could only be applied prospectively. They also cited the Supreme Court's order in Union of India vs. M/S Nutrient Marine Foods Ltd., where leave to appeal was not granted in view of the Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. judgment. Revenue: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Prohibition of Benami Transaction Act, 1988, Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Neutral Cita on No. 2023:PHHC:137823-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 255-3 CWP No.25902 of 2021 (O&M) Date of decision: 11.10.2023 RANVIR SINGH AND ORS.

…. Petitioners Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

…. Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present : Mr. Divya Suri, Advocate Ms. Sameeksha Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal Opal, Sr. Standing Counsel for the respondent. **** RITU BAHRI, J. (Oral) 1. This writ petition has been taken up for final disposal with the consent of the counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioners challenge the vires of Prohibition of Benami Transaction Act, 1998 (For short-“Benami Act”) as amended by way of 2016 Amendment Act, on the ground that the provisions of the amending Act could not be operated retrospectively and therefore, he prayed for issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus and certiorari thereby declaring the retrospective operation and effect of the POOJA SAINI 2023.11.07 10:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

CWP No.25902 of 2021 (O&M) -2- amendment made in the Benami Act in the year 2016, and also prayed for issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the notices dated 29.12.2020 (Annexure P-1), dated 26.12.2020 (Annexure P-2), dated 28.09.2020 (Annexure P-3), dated 28.09.2020 (Annexure P-4), dated 26.12.2020 (Annexure P-5 to P-9). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to a judgment passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Union of India and Another vs. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd., 2022 SCC Online SC 1064 wherein the provisions of Section 3(2) of the un-amended Benami Act, 1988 and Section 5 of the Act, 1988 had been declared unconstitutional and it was directed that the provisions of Section 5 of the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 (for short-the Act, 2016) being punitive in nature could be applied only prospectively and not retroactively. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners also placed on record a copy of order dated 02.05.2023 passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No. 7978 of 2023 titled as Union of India and others vs. M/S Nutrient Marine Foods Ltd. and another, showing that the Union of India had not been granted leave to file appeal in view of judgment in case of Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd.'s case (supra), with liberty to it to approach the Apex Court by filing afresh petition in case, the review petition was allowed. 5. Though, a review petition as filed by the respondents in Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd.’s case (supra), is stated to be pending POOJA SAINI 2023.11.07 10:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

CWP No.25902 of 2021 (O&M) -3- before Hon’ble Supreme Court, however, in case titled as Union of India and others vs. M/S Nutrient Marine Foods Ltd., no leave has been granted to file appeal. 6. Since the present petition is squarely covered by the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd.’s case (supra), therefore, this writ petition is allowed and notices dated 29.12.2020 (Annexure P-1), dated 26.12.2020 (Annexure P-2), dated 28.09.2020 (Annexure P-3), dated 28.09.2020 (Annexure P-4), dated 26.12.2020 (Annexure P-5 to P-9) are being quashed. However, it is clarified that the respondent shall be entitled to seek revival of the petition in case the review petition filed by the respondent in Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. is allowed. 7. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE (MANISHA BATRA) 11.10.2023 JUDGE pooja saini Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No. Whether reportable : Yes/No POOJA SAINI 2023.11.07 10:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →