MR MOHAMED NAVEEDULLA ATAULLA vs. UNION OF INDIA

PDF · subscribers
WP/11648/2021HC KarnatakaKAHC01022488202130 September 2022Bench: KRISHNA S DIXIT3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that similar cases should be treated alike and that relief granted to one litigant should be extended to others in similar circumstances. Consequently, the impugned notice and provisional attachment order were quashed.

What were the facts?

The petitioner challenged the retrospective operation of certain provisions of the Amending Act of 2016, as interpreted by the respondents. The case was substantially similar to a previous writ petition decided by the same court.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the constitutionality of the retrospective application of specific sections of the Amending Act of 2016. The court also considered the principle of treating similar cases alike.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 2(8),Section 2(9)(A),Section 2(26),Section 19(1)(b),Section 21(1),Section 24(1),Section 24(3),Section 24(4) (a)(i),Section 24(5),Section 26(1),Section 26(3),Section 53,Section 54

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

WRIT PETITION NO.11648 OF 2021 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

MR. MOHAMED NAVEEDULLA ATAULLA. AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, NO.59, FLAT NO.1702, EMBASSY, PALACE ROAD, VASANTHNAGAR, BANGALORE-560001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI.SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI. MAHESH CHOWDHARY, ADVOCATE AND MS. KRISHIKA VAISHNAV, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1 . UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

2 . DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENAMI PROHIBITION UNIT, NO.208, 2ND FLOOR, C.R BUILDING, QUEEN ROAD, BANGALORE-560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.SHANTHI BHUSHAN, ASG FOR R1; SRI.K.V.ARAVIND, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE INTERPRETATION OF RESPONDENTS TO THE RETROSPECTIVE OPERATION PROVIDED OF THE AMENDING ACT OF 2016 IN RESPECT OF THE PROVISIONS VIDE SECTIONS 1, 2(8), 2(9)(A),

2(26), 19(1)(b), 21(1), 24(1), 24(3), 24(4) (a)(i), 24(5), 26(1) AND 26(3), 53, 54 VIDE ANNX-A AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND THEREFORE, TO BE NULL AND VOID.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

ORDER

Learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that and learned Sr. Panel Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent does not dispute that the subject matter of this Writ Petition is substantially similar to the one in W.P.No.27322/2019 c/w other petitions between SMT. GOWRAMMA VS. INITIATING OFFICER AND OTHERS, disposed off, by this court vide judgment dated 5.9.2022 and that relief granted to the litigant therein, needs to be extended to the petitioner.

2.

The Division Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos.932-933/1974 between A.V.VINODA & ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS COMMISSIONER & SECRETARY disposed off on 11.12.1974, has held that the Court should treat like-cases alike and if relief is granted to a litigant, similar relief cannot be denied

to other similarly circumstanced litigant as well, there being no derogatory circumstances.

In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition is disposed off quashing the impugned notice dated 5.3.2021 at Annexure-B and the provisional attachment order dated 12.03.2021 at Annexure-C and corrigendum dated 18.03.2021 at Annexure-C1.

Costs made easy.

Sd/- JUDGE

cbc

More judgments on Section 24(1)

All 76 judgments and leading authorities on Section 24(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →