STEER ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMTED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

PDF · subscribers
WP/3891/2022HC KarnatakaKAHC01008270202218 April 2022Bench: ALOK ARADHE,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY5 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court declared the explanation below Clause (A) in the relevant notifications as ultra vires the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020. Consequently, the impugned notices issued under Section 148 were quashed.

What were the facts?

The petitioner sought to quash notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and challenged certain notifications issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. The petitioner argued that the extension of time limits under the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, did not apply to notices issued after April 1, 2021.

What were the issues?

Whether the notifications issued by the CBDT were ultra vires the Income Tax Act and the 2020 Act, and if the extension of time limits applied to notices issued after April 1, 2021.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF APRIL 2022 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY W.P. No.3891 OF 2022 (T-IT) BETWEEN: STEER ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMTED REP BY ITS DIRECTOR SRI. SATISH PADMANABHAN S/O SRI. RAMASWAMY PADMANABHAN AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS NO 290, 4TH MAIN, IV PHASE PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA BANGALORE 560058.

... PETITIONER (BY MR. A. SHANKAR, SR. COUNSEL FOR MR. S. ANNAMALAI, ADV.,) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JCIT (OSD) CIRCLE 6(1)(1), BMTC BUILDING 80 FEET ROAD, 6TH BLOCK NEAR KHB GAMES VILLAGE KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU 560095. 2. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES THROUGH THE CHAIRPERSON DEPT OF REVENUE MINISTRY OF FINANCE NORTH BLOCK

2 NEW DELHI 110001. 3. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1 BMTC BUILDING 80 FEET ROAD, 6TH BLOCK NEAR KHB GAMES VILLAGE KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU 560095.

... RESPONDENTS (BY MR. K.V. ARAVIND A/W MR. DILIP M, ADVS.,) - - - THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 DATED 30.06.2021 BEARING DIN AND NOTICE No.ITBA/AST/S/148/2021-22/1033912162(1) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 HERE IN MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A. DECLARE THAT THE EXPLANATION BELOW CLAUSE (A) IN THE NOTIFICATION BEARING No.20/2021/F.No.370142/35/2020-TPL DATED 31.03.2021 HERE IN MARKED AS ANNEUXRE-B AND No.38/2021/F.No.370142/35/2020-TPL DATED 27.04.2021 HERE IN MARKED AS ANNEXURE-C ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT No-2 IS ULTRA VIRES THE PROVISIONS OF THE TAXATION AND OTHER LAWS (RELAXATION AND AMENDMENT OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS) ACT, 2020 AND THUS BAD IN LAW & ETC., THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER The petitioner in this writ petition has sought

3 quashment of explanation below Clause (A) in the notification bearing No.20/2021 F.NO.370142/35/2020-TPL dated 31.03.2021 and notification No.38/2021/F.No.370142/35/2020-TPL dated 27.04.2021 issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes, as ultra vires the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘1961 Act’ for short) and the provisions of Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (hereinafter referred to as ‘2020 Act’ for short). The petitioner has also prayed for relief that extension of time limit by the 2020 Act does not apply to notices issued under erstwhile Section 148 of the 1961 Act, after 01.04.2021. The petitioner also seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing the notices dated 30.06.2021 issued under Section 148 of the 1961 Act for the Assessment year 2016-17.

4 2. We have heard the learned counsel at length. For the reasons assigned by us in the judgment dated 19.04.2022 passed in W.P.No.22348/2021 and for the reasons assigned by division bench of High Court of Allahabad in ASHOK KUAR AGARWAL VS. UNION OF INDIA’, Rajasthan High Court in ‘BPIP INFRA (P.) LTD. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(1), JAIPUR, Delhi High Court decision in MON MOHAN KOHLI VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR. And decision of Bombay High Court in TATA COMMUNICATIONS TRANSFORMATION SERVICES LIMITED, VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 14(1) AND OTHERS, W.P.NO.1334/2021 the explanation below Clause (A) in the notification bearing No.20/2021370142/35/2020-tl dated 31.03.2021 and notification No.38/2021f. No.370142/35/2020-

5 TPL dated 27.04.2021 issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes is hereby declared as ultra vires the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961 and the provisions of Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020. The impugned notice dated 30.06.2021 issued under Section 148 of the Act is quashed. 3. However, it will be open to the Assessing Officer concerned to initiate fresh re-assessment proceeding in accordance with relevant provisions of the 1961 Act as amended by Finance Act, 2021 after strictly complying with the provisions of the Act. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE SS

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →