Bombay High Court Judgments — 2022

The High Court held that the Explanations to Notification No. 20/2021 and Notification No. 38/2021 were ultra vires and therefore bad in law and null and void. The Court agreed with the assessee's submission that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act, which falls under Chapter II titled 'Relaxation of Certain Provisions of Specified Act', was only a relaxation provision dealing with time limits and did not empower the Central Government to amend the substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. Chapter III, containing Section 4, was where amendments to the Act were made by the legislature itself. Furthermore, the Court found that even if the Explanations were considered valid, the impugned notices were still bad in law because the Assessing Officers had assumed jurisdiction based on the 'reason to believe' criterion, which is no longer recognized in the amended Section 147. Additionally, the mandatory procedure under Section 148A, which is part of the amended provisions governing reassessment, was not followed. The Court also noted that the Relaxation Act was not applicable to Assessment Years 2015-2016 onwards. Consequently, all the impugned notices issued under Section 148 of the Act were quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officers were permitted to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act as amended by the Finance Act, 2021, after strictly complying with the statutory requirements.

The High Court held that the Explanations to Notification No. 20/2021 and Notification No. 38/2021 are ultra vires the Relaxation Act and therefore bad in law and void. The Court agreed with the assessee that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act was a provision for relaxing time limits and did not grant the power to amend the substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. That power was exercised by the legislature itself through Section 4 of the Relaxation Act. The Court further found that even if the Explanations were considered valid, the impugned notices were still invalid because they did not comply with the amended Section 147, which requires following the procedure under Section 148A, and the Assessing Officers incorrectly relied on the 'reason to believe' clause. The Court also noted that the Relaxation Act was not applicable to Assessment Years 2015-2016 onwards. Consequently, all impugned notices issued under Section 148 were quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officers were permitted to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act, strictly complying with the statutory requirements.

The High Court held that the Explanations to Notification No. 20/2021 and Notification No. 38/2021 were ultra vires and therefore bad in law and null and void. The Court agreed with the assessee's submission that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act was merely a relaxation provision dealing with time limits and did not empower the Central Government to amend the substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. Section 4 of the Relaxation Act, which did amend provisions, was distinct. The Court found that the Explanations sought to give effect to the erstwhile Sections 148, 149, and 151 but did not cover Section 147. Consequently, the assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officers was based on the 'reason to believe' concept, which is no longer recognized in the amended Section 147. Moreover, the amended Section 147 is subject to Sections 148 to 153, including Section 148A, the procedure for which was not followed. The Court also noted that the Relaxation Act was not applicable for Assessment Years 2015-2016 or subsequent years. All impugned notices were quashed and set aside, with liberty to the Assessing Officers to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act.

The High Court held that the Explanations to Notification No. 20 of 2021 and Notification No. 38 of 2021 were ultra vires and therefore bad in law and null and void. The Court reasoned that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act, 2020, was a relaxation provision dealing with time limits and did not grant the Central Government the power to amend the substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This power was distinct from the amendments made by the Legislature itself under Section 4 of the Relaxation Act. The Court agreed with the petitioners that only Section 4 amended the Act, not Section 3. Furthermore, the Court found that even if the Explanations were considered valid, the impugned notices were still invalid because the Assessing Officers had not complied with the amended Section 147, which no longer relies on the 'reason to believe' criterion, and crucially, had not followed the mandatory procedure laid down in Section 148A. The Court also noted that the Relaxation Act was not applicable to Assessment Years 2015-2016 and subsequent years, as the time limits for issuing notices for these years were not expiring within the period covered by Section 3(1) of the Relaxation Act. Consequently, all impugned notices were quashed and set aside, with liberty to the Assessing Officers to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act.

The High Court held that the Explanations to Notification No. 20/2021 and Notification No. 38/2021 were ultra vires and therefore bad in law and null and void. The Court agreed with the petitioners that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act was a provision for relaxing time limits and did not empower the Central Government to amend the substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. Section 4 of the Relaxation Act, which amended the Act, was enacted by the legislature itself. The Court found that the impugned notices were bad in law for multiple reasons. Firstly, they were issued based on the 'reason to believe' principle from the repealed Section 147, which is not recognized in the amended Section 147. Secondly, the procedure under the amended Section 148A was not followed, rendering the notices invalid even if the Explanations were considered valid. Thirdly, the Relaxation Act was not applicable to Assessment Years 2015-2016 and subsequent years, as the time limits for issuing notices for these years were not expiring within the period covered by Section 3(1) of the Relaxation Act. Consequently, the Court quashed and set aside all the impugned notices issued under Section 148 of the Act. The Assessing Officers were permitted to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act, strictly complying with the statutory requirements. The Court noted its respectful agreement with decisions of the Allahabad High Court, Rajasthan High Court, Delhi High Court, and Madras High Court.

The High Court allowed the writ petitions, declaring the Explanations to Notification No. 20/2021 and Notification No. 38/2021 as ultra vires, bad in law, and void. The Court reasoned that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act, which falls under the chapter titled 'Relaxation of Certain Provisions of Specified Act', was primarily a provision for relaxing time limits and did not grant the power to amend substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. This power was vested in Section 4, which was enacted by the legislature itself. The Court agreed with the petitioners that only Section 4 amended the Act, not Section 3. Consequently, the Court found that the notices issued under Section 148 were invalid for multiple reasons. Firstly, the Explanations to the notifications were declared void. Secondly, even if the Explanations were valid, the notices failed to comply with the amended Section 147 (which no longer relies on 'reason to believe') and the mandatory procedure under Section 148A. Thirdly, the Court held that the Relaxation Act was not applicable to Assessment Years 2015-2016 and subsequent years, as the time limits for issuing notices for these years were not expiring within the period specified in Section 3(1) of the Relaxation Act. Therefore, the impugned notices were quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officers were permitted to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the relevant amended provisions of the Act, strictly complying with the statutory procedures.

The High Court held that the Explanations to Notification No. 20 of 2021 and Notification No. 38 of 2021 were ultra vires, bad in law, and null and void. The Court agreed with the assessee's contention that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act was only a relaxation provision dealing with time limits and did not empower the Central Government to amend the substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. Section 4 of the Relaxation Act, which did amend the Act, was a legislative amendment, not a delegation of power. Furthermore, the Court found that even if the Explanations were considered valid, the impugned notices were still invalid because they did not comply with the amended Section 147 (which no longer uses the 'reason to believe' concept) and the mandatory procedure under Section 148A. The Court also noted that the Relaxation Act was not applicable to Assessment Years 2015-2016 onwards. Consequently, all impugned notices issued under Section 148 were quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officers were permitted to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act.

The High Court held that the Explanations to Notification No. 20/2021 and Notification No. 38/2021 are ultra vires and consequently bad in law and void. The Court agreed with the assessee's contention that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act is a relaxation provision dealing with time limits and does not empower the Central Government to amend substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. Such amendments are only permissible under Section 4 of the Relaxation Act, which was enacted by the legislature itself. Furthermore, the Court found that even if the Explanations were considered valid, the impugned notices were still invalid because they did not comply with the amended Section 147 of the Act, particularly the omission of the 'reason to believe' requirement and the non-adherence to the procedure under Section 148A. The Court also noted that the Relaxation Act was not applicable to Assessment Years 2015-2016 onwards. Consequently, all impugned notices issued under Section 148 were quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officers were permitted to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act.

The High Court held that the Explanations to Notification No. 20/2021 and Notification No. 38/2021 were ultra vires, bad in law, and void. The Court agreed with the petitioners that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act was a relaxation provision for time limits and did not grant the power to amend the substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. It reasoned that Section 4 of the Relaxation Act was the section that amended the Act, and no such power was delegated to the Central Government under Section 3. The Court further found that even if the Explanations were considered valid, the impugned notices were still bad in law because they did not comply with the amended Section 147, which is subject to Sections 148 to 153, including the mandatory procedure under Section 148A. The Court also noted that the Relaxation Act was not applicable to Assessment Years 2015-2016 onwards. Consequently, all impugned notices issued under Section 148 were quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officers were permitted to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act and by strictly complying with the statutory procedures.

The Bombay High Court held that the Explanations to Notification No. 20 of 2021 and Notification No. 38 of 2021 were ultra vires and therefore bad in law and null and void. The Court agreed with the petitioners' submission that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act was only a relaxation provision dealing with time limits and did not amend the substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. It noted that Section 4 of the Relaxation Act was the provision that amended the Act. The Court further found that even if the Explanations were considered valid, the notices were still invalid because they were issued based on the erstwhile 'reason to believe' criterion under Section 147, which is no longer recognized in the amended Section 147, and the procedure under the amended Section 148A had not been followed. Additionally, the Court held that the Relaxation Act was not applicable for Assessment Years 2015-2016 or subsequent years. Consequently, all impugned notices issued under Section 148 were quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officers were permitted to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act as amended by the Finance Act, 2021, after strictly complying with the statutory provisions.

The High Court held that the Explanations to Notification No. 20 of 2021 and Notification No. 38 of 2021 were ultra vires, bad in law, and void. The Court agreed with the assessee's submission that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act, 2020, dealt with time limits and did not empower the Central Government to amend substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Only Section 4 of the Relaxation Act effected amendments to the Act. The Court further found that even if the Explanations were considered valid, the impugned notices were still invalid because they were issued based on the erstwhile Section 147's 'reason to believe' concept, which is no longer recognized in the amended Section 147. Additionally, the mandatory procedure under Section 148A was not followed. The Court also noted that the Relaxation Act was not applicable to Assessment Years 2015-2016 and subsequent years. Consequently, all impugned notices issued under Section 148 were quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officers were permitted to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act, strictly complying with the statutory requirements. The Court relied on decisions from the Allahabad, Rajasthan, Delhi, and Madras High Courts.

The High Court held that the Explanations to Notification No. 20/2021 and Notification No. 38/2021 were ultra vires and therefore bad in law and null and void. The Court agreed with the petitioners that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act was a relaxation provision dealing with time limits and did not empower the Central Government to amend substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. Section 4 of the Relaxation Act was the provision that amended the Act. The Court found that the impugned notices were bad in law for multiple reasons: (a) the Explanations to the notifications were invalid; (b) even if the Explanations were valid, they did not cover Section 147, which empowers revenue to reopen subject to Sections 148 to 153, including Section 148A, and the procedure under Section 148A was not followed; (c) the Relaxation Act was not applicable for Assessment Years 2015-2016 or any subsequent year. Consequently, all the impugned notices issued under Section 148 of the Act were quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officers were permitted to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act, strictly complying with the law.

The High Court held that the Explanations to Notification No. 20 of 2021 and Notification No. 38 of 2021 were ultra vires, bad in law, and consequently null and void. The Court reasoned that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act, which falls under Chapter II titled 'Relaxation of Certain Provisions of Specified Act', was a provision dealing with time limits and did not grant the power to amend substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. This power was distinct from Section 4 of the Relaxation Act, which did amend the Act. The Court agreed with the petitioners that only Section 4 amended the Act, not Section 3. Furthermore, the Court found that even if the Explanations were valid, the impugned notices were invalid because the Assessing Officers had assumed jurisdiction based on the 'reason to believe' concept, which is no longer recognized in the amended Section 147. Additionally, the mandatory procedure under Section 148A was not followed, rendering the notices non-compliant with statutory provisions. The Court also noted that the Relaxation Act was not applicable to the assessment years in question. Consequently, all the impugned notices issued under Section 148 of the Act were quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officers were permitted to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act.

The High Court held that the Explanations to Notification No. 20/2021 and Notification No. 38/2021 were ultra vires and therefore bad in law and null and void. The Court agreed with the petitioners that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act was a provision for relaxing time limits and did not empower the Central Government to amend substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Only Section 4 of the Relaxation Act contained legislative amendments. The Court found that the impugned notices were also invalid because they were issued based on the erstwhile Section 147's 'reason to believe' concept, which is no longer recognized in the amended Section 147. Furthermore, the procedure under the amended Section 147, which is subject to Sections 148 to 153 (including Section 148A), was not followed. The Court also held that the Relaxation Act was not applicable to Assessment Years 2015-2016 and subsequent years as the time limits for these years did not fall within the scope of Section 3(1) of the Relaxation Act. Consequently, all impugned notices were quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officers were permitted to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act.

The High Court held that the Explanations to Notification No. 20/2021 and Notification No. 38/2021 were ultra vires and therefore bad in law and null and void. The Court agreed with the petitioners' submission that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act was a relaxation provision dealing with time limits and did not empower amendments to substantive provisions of the Act, unlike Section 4. The Court found that the impugned notices were bad in law because they were issued on the basis of the Assessing Officer's 'reason to believe' that income had escaped assessment, a concept no longer recognized in the amended Section 147. Additionally, the amended Section 147 is subject to Sections 148 to 153, which include the procedure under Section 148A, a procedure that was not followed. The Court also held that the Relaxation Act was not applicable to Assessment Years 2015-2016 and subsequent years, as the time limits for these years were not expiring within the period for which Section 3(1) of the Relaxation Act was applicable. Consequently, the Court quashed and set aside all the impugned notices issued under Section 148 of the Act. The Assessing Officers were permitted to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act, strictly complying with the same. The Court was in respectful agreement with the views taken by the Allahabad High Court, Rajasthan High Court, Delhi High Court, and Madras High Court.

The High Court held that the Explanations to Notification No. 20 of 2021 and Notification No. 38 of 2021 were ultra vires, bad in law, and null and void. The Court reasoned that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act, which falls under Chapter II titled 'Relaxation of Certain Provisions of Specified Act', was only a relaxation provision dealing with time limits and did not grant the power to amend substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. This power was distinct from Section 4, which did amend provisions of the Act. The Court agreed with the petitioners that Section 3 did not envisage amendments to substantive provisions. Furthermore, the Court found that even if the Explanations were considered valid, the impugned notices were still bad in law because they were issued based on the erstwhile Section 147 ('reason to believe') which is no longer recognized in the amended Section 147, and because the mandatory procedure under Section 148A was not followed. The Court also held that the Relaxation Act was not applicable to the assessment years 2015-2016 and subsequent years, as the time limits for issuing notices for these years were not expiring within the period of applicability of Section 3(1) of the Relaxation Act. Consequently, all impugned notices were quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officers were permitted to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act.

The High Court held that the Explanations to Notification No. 20/2021 and Notification No. 38/2021 were ultra vires and therefore bad in law and null and void. The Court agreed with the petitioners that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act was a relaxation provision dealing with time limits and did not empower the Central Government to amend substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act, unlike Section 4. The Court found that the impugned notices were invalid for multiple reasons: (a) the Explanations sought to revive repealed provisions without legislative backing; (b) the assumption of jurisdiction was based on the 'reason to believe' concept, which is no longer recognized in the amended Section 147; (c) the procedure under the amended Section 147, including Section 148A, was not followed; and (d) the Relaxation Act was not applicable for Assessment Years 2015-2016 onwards as the time limits for these years were not expiring within the period covered by Section 3(1) of the Relaxation Act. Consequently, all impugned notices were quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officers were permitted to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act.

The High Court held that the Explanations to Notification No. 20/2021 and Notification No. 38/2021 are ultra vires and therefore bad in law and null and void. The Court reasoned that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act, which falls under Chapter II titled 'Relaxation of Certain Provisions of Specified Act', is a relaxation provision dealing with time limits and does not grant the power to amend substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. In contrast, Section 4 of the Relaxation Act, which falls under Chapter III titled 'Amendments to the Income Tax Act, 1961', contains legislative amendments. The Court agreed with the petitioners that only Section 4 amended the Act, and no such power was delegated to the Central Government under Section 3. Furthermore, the Court found that even if the Explanations were considered valid, the impugned notices were still bad in law as they did not comply with the amended Section 147 (which no longer uses 'reason to believe') and failed to follow the mandatory procedure under Section 148A. The Court also noted that the Relaxation Act was not applicable for Assessment Years 2015-2016 onwards. Consequently, all the impugned notices issued under Section 148 of the Act were quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officers were permitted to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act as amended by the Finance Act, 2021, strictly complying with the statutory provisions. The ratio decidendi is that statutory notifications cannot override or amend substantive provisions of an Act, especially when the power to do so is not explicitly delegated, and procedural requirements must be strictly adhered to.

The High Court allowed the writ petitions, quashing and setting aside all impugned notices issued under Section 148 of the Act. The Court held that the Explanations to Notification No. 20/2021 and Notification No. 38/2021 were ultra vires, bad in law, and void. The reasoning was that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act, which falls under Chapter II titled ‘Relaxation of Certain Provisions of Specified Act’, was a relaxation provision dealing with time limits and did not empower the Central Government to amend substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. This power was not delegated, unlike Section 4 which amended provisions of the Act. The Court agreed with the petitioners that only Section 4 amended the Act. Furthermore, even if the Explanations were considered valid, the notices were still bad in law because they did not comply with the amended Section 147, which no longer recognizes the concept of 'reason to believe' for assuming jurisdiction, and the mandatory procedure under Section 148A was not followed. The Court also found that the Relaxation Act was not applicable for Assessment Years 2015-2016 or subsequent years, as the time limit for issuing notices for these years was not expiring within the period for which Section 3(1) of the Relaxation Act was applicable. The Court directed that it would be open to the Assessing Officers to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act as amended by the Finance Act, 2021, after strictly complying with the statutory provisions.

The High Court held that the Explanations to Notification No. 20/2021 and Notification No. 38/2021 were ultra vires and therefore bad in law and null and void. The Court agreed with the assessee's submission that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act was a relaxation provision dealing with time limits and did not amend the substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. It noted that Section 4 of the Relaxation Act was the provision that amended the Act. The Court found that the impugned notices were invalid for multiple reasons: (a) they were issued based on the 'reason to believe' under the repealed Section 147, which is not recognized in the amended Section 147; (b) the mandatory procedure under the amended Section 148A was not followed; and (c) the Relaxation Act was not applicable to Assessment Years 2015-2016 onwards. Consequently, all impugned notices issued under Section 148 of the Act were quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officers were permitted to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the relevant amended provisions of the Act.

The High Court held that the Explanations to Notification No. 20 of 2021 and Notification No. 38 of 2021 were ultra vires, bad in law, and void. The Court agreed with the assessee's submission that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act was a provision for relaxing time limits and did not grant the power to amend the substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. It noted that Section 4 of the Relaxation Act, which did amend the Act, was distinct from Section 3. The Court found that the impugned notices were invalid for multiple reasons: (a) the Explanations were ultra vires; (b) even if the Explanations were valid, they did not cover Section 147, which requires compliance with Sections 148 to 153, including Section 148A, and the procedure under Section 148A was not followed; (c) the 'reason to believe' criterion, used in the notices, was no longer recognized under the amended Section 147; and (d) the Relaxation Act was not applicable for Assessment Years 2015-2016 onwards. Consequently, all impugned notices were quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officers were permitted to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act, strictly complying with the statutory requirements.

The High Court held that the Explanations to Notification No. 20/2021 and Notification No. 38/2021 were ultra vires and therefore bad in law and void. The Court agreed with the Assessee that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act was a relaxation provision dealing with time limits and did not empower the Central Government to amend substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act, unlike Section 4. The Court further held that even if the Explanations were valid, the impugned notices were invalid because they did not comply with the amended Section 147, which no longer uses the 'reason to believe' concept and requires compliance with Section 148A. The Court also found that the Relaxation Act was not applicable for Assessment Years 2015-2016 and subsequent years. Consequently, all impugned notices were quashed and set aside, with liberty to the Assessing Officers to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act.

The High Court allowed the writ petitions. It held that the Explanations to Notification No. 20/2021 and Notification No. 38/2021 were ultra vires, bad in law, and void. The Court agreed with the petitioners that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act was only a relaxation provision dealing with time limits and did not empower the Central Government to amend substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. Section 4 of the Relaxation Act was the provision that amended the Act, and it did not delegate power to the Central Government to amend substantive provisions. The Court found that the impugned notices were bad in law not only because the Explanations were invalid but also because they failed to comply with the amended Section 147 and the mandatory procedure under Section 148A. The Court also noted that the Relaxation Act was not applicable for Assessment Years 2015-2016 or subsequent years. Consequently, all impugned notices issued under Section 148 were quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officers were permitted to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act.

The High Court held that the Explanations to Notification No. 20 of 2021 and Notification No. 38 of 2021 were ultra vires and therefore bad in law and null and void. The Court agreed with the petitioners' submission that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act was merely a relaxation provision dealing with time limits and did not empower the Central Government to amend substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. Only Section 4 of the Relaxation Act contained legislative amendments. Furthermore, the Court found that even if the Explanations were considered valid, the impugned notices were still bad in law because they failed to comply with the amended Section 147 of the Act, which no longer relies on the 'reason to believe' clause, and crucially, did not follow the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 148A. The Court also noted that the Relaxation Act was not applicable to Assessment Years 2015-2016 and subsequent years. Consequently, all impugned notices issued under Section 148 of the Act were quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officers were permitted to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act, strictly complying with the statutory requirements.

The High Court allowed the writ petitions, declaring the Explanations to Notification No. 20 of 2021 and Notification No. 38 of 2021 as ultra vires, bad in law, and void. The Court held that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act, which falls under Chapter II titled 'Relaxation of Certain Provisions of Specified Act', did not empower the Central Government to amend substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. Only Section 4 of the Relaxation Act, falling under Chapter III titled 'Amendments to the Income Tax Act, 1961', contained legislative amendments. Therefore, the Explanations seeking to revive repealed provisions were invalid. Furthermore, the Court agreed with the assessee that even if the Explanations were valid, the notices were bad in law because they did not comply with the amended Section 147, which requires compliance with Sections 148 to 153, including the mandatory procedure under Section 148A. The Court also noted that the Relaxation Act was not applicable for Assessment Years 2015-2016 onwards. Consequently, all impugned notices issued under Section 148 were quashed and set aside, with liberty to the Assessing Officers to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act.

The High Court held that the Explanations to Notification No. 20 of 2021 and Notification No. 38 of 2021 were ultra vires and therefore bad in law and null and void. The Court agreed with the assessee's submission that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act was a relaxation provision dealing with time limits and did not empower the Central Government to amend substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. Section 4 of the Relaxation Act, which did amend provisions, was distinct and made by the legislature itself. The Court also found that even if the Explanations were considered valid, the impugned notices were still bad in law because they did not comply with the amended Section 147, which no longer recognizes 'reason to believe', and crucially, the mandatory procedure under Section 148A was not followed. The Court further noted that the Relaxation Act was not applicable for Assessment Years 2015-2016 onwards, as the time limits for those years were not expiring within the period for which Section 3(1) of the Relaxation Act was applicable. Consequently, all impugned notices issued under Section 148 were quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officers were permitted to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act as amended by the Finance Act, 2021, strictly complying with the statutory procedures.

The High Court held that the Explanations to Notification No. 20/2021 and Notification No. 38/2021 were ultra vires and therefore bad in law and null and void. The Court agreed with the assessee's submission that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act was a relaxation provision dealing with time limits and did not empower the Central Government to amend substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act, unlike Section 4 which did introduce amendments. The Court found that the Explanations sought to extend the applicability of the erstwhile Sections 148, 149, and 151, but did not cover Section 147, which empowers revenue to reopen subject to Sections 148 to 153, including Section 148A. Therefore, even if the Explanations were valid, the procedure under Section 148A was not followed, rendering the notices invalid. The Court also noted that the Relaxation Act was not applicable for Assessment Years 2015-2016 or subsequent years. Consequently, all impugned notices issued under Section 148 were quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officers were permitted to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act, strictly complying with the statutory requirements. The Court relied on decisions of the Allahabad High Court, Rajasthan High Court, Delhi High Court, and Madras High Court.

The High Court held that the Explanations to Notification No. 20/2021 and Notification No. 38/2021 are ultra vires and therefore bad in law and null and void. The Court agreed with the assessee's submission that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act was only a relaxation provision dealing with time limits and did not empower the Central Government to amend substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. Section 4 of the Relaxation Act was the provision that amended the Act. Furthermore, even if the Explanations were considered valid, the impugned notices were still invalid because they failed to comply with the amended Section 147 of the Act, which no longer recognizes the 'reason to believe' concept, and did not follow the mandatory procedure under Section 148A. The Court also found that the Relaxation Act was not applicable to Assessment Years 2015-2016 and onwards. Consequently, all impugned notices issued under Section 148 of the Act were quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officers were permitted to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act as amended by the Finance Act, 2021, strictly complying with the statutory procedures.

The High Court held that the Explanations to Notification No. 20/2021 and Notification No. 38/2021 were ultra vires, bad in law, and null and void. The Court agreed with the assessee that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act was a relaxation provision dealing with time limits and did not empower the Central Government to amend substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act; only Section 4 of the Relaxation Act did so. The Court found that the Explanations sought to extend the applicability of erstwhile Sections 148, 149, and 151, but crucially, they did not cover Section 147, which empowers reopening subject to Sections 148 to 153, including the mandatory procedure under Section 148A. Therefore, even if the Explanations were valid, the notices were invalid for non-compliance with Section 148A. Additionally, the Court noted that the Relaxation Act was not applicable for Assessment Years 2015-2016 or subsequent years. Consequently, all impugned notices issued under Section 148 were quashed and set aside, with liberty to the Assessing Officers to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act.

The High Court held that the Explanations to Notification No. 20 of 2021 and Notification No. 38 of 2021 were ultra vires, bad in law, and null and void. The Court agreed with the petitioners that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act was a relaxation provision dealing with time limits and did not empower the Central Government to amend the substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. Only Section 4 of the Relaxation Act amended the Act, and this was done by the legislature itself. The Court found that the notices were bad in law for multiple reasons: (a) the Explanations were invalid; (b) even if the Explanations were valid, they did not cover Section 147, and the procedure under the amended Section 147 and Section 148A was not followed; and (c) the Relaxation Act was not applicable for Assessment Years 2015-2016 onwards. Consequently, all impugned notices issued under Section 148 of the Act were quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officers were permitted to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act, strictly complying with the statutory requirements.

The High Court held that the Explanations to Notification No. 20 of 2021 and Notification No. 38 of 2021 were ultra vires and therefore bad in law and null and void. The Court agreed with the assessee's submission that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act was merely a relaxation provision for time limits and did not empower the Central Government to amend the substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. It noted that Section 4 of the Relaxation Act was the provision that amended the Act. The Court further held that even if the Explanations were considered valid, the impugned notices were invalid because they were issued based on the erstwhile 'reason to believe' criterion, which is not recognized in the amended Section 147, and the mandatory procedure under Section 148A was not followed. The Court also found that the Relaxation Act was not applicable for Assessment Years 2015-2016 onwards. Consequently, all impugned notices issued under Section 148 were quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officers were permitted to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act as amended by the Finance Act, 2021, strictly complying with the statutory provisions.

The High Court held that the Explanations to Notification No. 20 of 2021 and Notification No. 38 of 2021 were ultra vires, bad in law, and null and void. The Court agreed with the petitioners that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act was a relaxation provision for time limits and did not empower the Central Government to amend substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. It noted that Section 4 of the Relaxation Act was the provision that amended the Act. The Court further found that the impugned notices were invalid for multiple reasons: (a) the Explanations did not cover Section 147, which empowers reopening subject to Sections 148 to 153, including Section 148A, and thus the procedure under Section 148A was not followed; (b) the assumption of jurisdiction was based on the 'reason to believe' clause, which is no longer recognized in the amended Section 147; and (c) the Relaxation Act was not applicable for Assessment Years 2015-2016 onwards. Consequently, all impugned notices issued under Section 148 were quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officers were permitted to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act.

The High Court held that the Explanations to Notification No. 20/2021 and Notification No. 38/2021 were ultra vires and therefore bad in law and void. The Court agreed with the petitioners' submission that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act was a relaxation provision dealing with time limits and did not empower the Central Government to amend the substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. Section 4 of the Relaxation Act, which amended the Act, was distinct. The Court found that the impugned notices were bad in law for multiple reasons: (a) the Explanations did not cover Section 147, which empowers reopening subject to Sections 148 to 153, including Section 148A; (b) the Assessing Officers assumed jurisdiction based on the 'reason to believe' concept, which is no longer recognized in the amended Section 147; and (c) the procedure under Section 148A was not followed. Additionally, the Court held that the Relaxation Act was not applicable for Assessment Years 2015-2016 or any subsequent year, as the time limits for these years were not expiring within the period for which Section 3(1) of the Relaxation Act was applicable. Consequently, all impugned notices were quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officers were permitted to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act, strictly complying with the statutory requirements. The Court was in respectful agreement with the views of the Allahabad, Rajasthan, Delhi, and Madras High Courts on these matters.

The High Court held that the Explanations to Notification No. 20 of 2021 and Notification No. 38 of 2021 were ultra vires and therefore bad in law and null and void. The Court agreed with the assessee's submission that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act was only a relaxation provision dealing with time limits and did not amend the substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. It noted that Section 4 of the Relaxation Act, which amended the Act, was distinct from Section 3. The Court further found that even if the Explanations were considered valid, the impugned notices were invalid because they did not comply with the amended Section 147 of the Act, as they relied on the 'reason to believe' concept and failed to follow the mandatory procedure under Section 148A. Additionally, the Court held that the Relaxation Act was not applicable to Assessment Years 2015-2016 onwards. Consequently, all impugned notices issued under Section 148 were quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officers were permitted to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act, strictly complying with the statutory procedures.

The High Court held that the Explanations to Notification No. 20/2021 and Notification No. 38/2021 were ultra vires and therefore bad in law and null and void. The Court agreed with the petitioners that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act was a relaxation provision dealing with time limits and did not empower the Central Government to amend the substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. It noted that Section 4 of the Relaxation Act, which did amend the Act, was distinct and made by the Legislature itself. The Court further found that even if the Explanations were considered valid, the impugned notices were bad in law because they were issued based on the erstwhile Section 147 ('reason to believe') and failed to comply with the mandatory procedure under the amended Section 147, including Section 148A. The Court also held that the Relaxation Act was not applicable for Assessment Years 2015-2016 onwards. Consequently, all impugned notices issued under Section 148 were quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officers were permitted to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act.

The High Court held that the Explanations to Notification No. 20/2021 and Notification No. 38/2021 were ultra vires the Relaxation Act and therefore bad in law and void. The Court agreed with the petitioners that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act was merely a relaxation provision for time limits and did not grant the power to amend the substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. Only Section 4 of the Relaxation Act contained such legislative amendments. The Court also found that the impugned notices were invalid for not complying with the amended Section 147, as the Assessing Officers relied on the 'reason to believe' clause, which was obsolete, and failed to follow the mandatory procedure under Section 148A. Additionally, the Court noted that the Relaxation Act was not applicable to Assessment Years 2015-2016 and subsequent years. Consequently, all impugned notices issued under Section 148 were quashed. The Assessing Officers were permitted to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act, strictly complying with the statutory requirements.

The High Court held that the Explanations to Notification No. 20 of 2021 and Notification No. 38 of 2021 were ultra vires and therefore bad in law and null and void. The Court agreed with the petitioners' submission that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act was a provision for relaxing time limits and did not empower the Central Government to amend or revive substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Section 4 of the Relaxation Act, which did amend the Act, was a legislative amendment and not a delegation. Furthermore, the Court found that even if the Explanations were considered valid, the impugned notices were still invalid because they did not comply with the amended Section 147, which is subject to Sections 148 to 153, including the mandatory procedure under Section 148A. The Court also noted that the Relaxation Act was not applicable for Assessment Years 2015-2016 onwards. Consequently, all impugned notices issued under Section 148 of the Act were quashed and set aside, with liberty to the Assessing Officers to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the amended provisions.

The High Court held that the Explanations to Notification No. 20/2021 and Notification No. 38/2021 were ultra vires and therefore bad in law and void. The Court agreed with the petitioners' submission that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act was a relaxation provision dealing with time limits and did not empower the Central Government to amend the substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. Section 4 of the Relaxation Act, which amended the Act, was distinct. The Court found that the notices were invalid for multiple reasons: (a) the Explanations were ultra vires; (b) the notices were issued based on the erstwhile Section 147's 'reason to believe' concept, which is not recognized in the amended Section 147; (c) the procedure under the amended Section 148A was not followed; and (d) the Relaxation Act was not applicable to Assessment Years 2015-2016 onwards. Consequently, all impugned notices were quashed and set aside, with liberty to the Assessing Officers to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with the amended provisions.

The High Court held that the Explanations to Notification No. 20/2021 and Notification No. 38/2021 were ultra vires and therefore bad in law and null and void. The Court found that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act, which falls under Chapter II titled 'Relaxation of Certain Provisions of Specified Act', was only a relaxation provision dealing with time limits and did not grant the Central Government the power to amend substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. This power was distinct from Section 4 of the Relaxation Act, which itself amended the Act through legislative action. The Court agreed with the petitioners that only Section 4 amended the Act, not Section 3. Furthermore, the Court noted that even if the Explanations were considered valid, they did not cover Section 147, which empowers revenue to reopen subject to Sections 148 to 153, including Section 148A. Since the procedure under Section 148A was not followed, the impugned notices were invalid. The Court also noted that the Relaxation Act was not applicable for Assessment Years 2015-2016 onwards, as the time limits for those years were not expiring within the period for which Section 3(1) of the Relaxation Act was applicable. Consequently, all impugned notices issued under Section 148 of the Act were quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officers were permitted to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act, strictly complying with the relevant procedures.

The High Court held that the Explanations to Notification No. 20 of 2021 and Notification No. 38 of 2021 are ultra vires, bad in law, and null and void. The Court agreed with the assessee's submission that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act was a relaxation provision dealing with time limits and did not empower the Central Government to amend the substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. Only Section 4 of the Relaxation Act amended the Act. Furthermore, the Court found that even if the Explanations were considered valid, the impugned notices were still invalid because they did not comply with the amended Section 147, which requires adherence to Sections 148 to 153, including the procedure under Section 148A. The 'reason to believe' standard, used in the erstwhile Section 147, was no longer applicable. The Court also noted that the Relaxation Act was not applicable to Assessment Years 2015-2016 onwards. Consequently, all impugned notices issued under Section 148 were quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officers were permitted to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act, strictly complying with the law. The Court relied on decisions from the Allahabad High Court, Rajasthan High Court, Delhi High Court, and Madras High Court.

The High Court held that the Explanations to Notification No. 20/2021 and Notification No. 38/2021 were ultra vires and therefore bad in law and null and void. The Court agreed with the petitioners' submission that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act was merely a relaxation provision for time limits and did not empower the Central Government to amend the substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. Section 4 of the Relaxation Act was the provision that amended the Act. The Court further found that the impugned notices were bad in law because they were issued based on the erstwhile Section 147, which required 'reason to believe,' a concept no longer recognized in the amended Section 147. Additionally, the procedure under the amended Section 148A had not been followed. The Court also noted that the Relaxation Act was not applicable to assessment years 2015-2016 onwards. Consequently, all the impugned notices issued under Section 148 of the Act were quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officers were permitted to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act.

The High Court held that the Explanations to Notification No. 20 of 2021 and Notification No. 38 of 2021 are ultra vires, bad in law, and null and void. The Court agreed with the assessee's submission that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act was a provision for relaxation of time limits and did not grant the power to amend substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. Such amendments were made by the legislature itself under Section 4 of the Relaxation Act. The Court found that the Explanations sought to extend the applicability of erstwhile Sections 148, 149, and 151, but crucially, they did not cover Section 147, which empowers revenue to reopen subject to Sections 148 to 153, including Section 148A. Therefore, even if the Explanations were valid, the procedure under Section 148A was not followed, rendering the notices invalid. The Court also noted that the Relaxation Act was not applicable for Assessment Years 2015-2016 onwards. Consequently, all impugned notices issued under Section 148 were quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officers were permitted to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act, strictly complying with the statutory requirements. The Court relied on decisions from the Allahabad High Court, Rajasthan High Court, Delhi High Court, and Madras High Court.

The High Court allowed the writ petitions, holding that the Explanations to Notification No. 20 of 2021 and Notification No. 38 of 2021 were ultra vires, bad in law, and null and void. The Court agreed with the petitioner's submission that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act was a relaxation provision dealing with time limits and did not empower the Central Government to amend the substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. Only Section 4 of the Relaxation Act amended the Act. Furthermore, the Court found that even if the Explanations were considered valid, the impugned notices were invalid because they did not comply with the amended Section 147, which requires adherence to Sections 148 to 153, including the procedure under Section 148A. The 'reason to believe' basis for assuming jurisdiction was also deemed obsolete under the amended provisions. The Court also noted that the Relaxation Act was not applicable to Assessment Years 2015-2016 onwards. Consequently, all impugned notices issued under Section 148 were quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officers were permitted to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act, strictly complying with the statutory requirements.

The High Court held that the Explanations to Notification No. 20/2021 and Notification No. 38/2021 were ultra vires the Relaxation Act and therefore bad in law and void. The Court reasoned that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act, which falls under Chapter II titled 'Relaxation of Certain Provisions of Specified Act', did not grant the power to amend substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. Only Section 4 of the Relaxation Act, falling under Chapter III titled 'Amendments to the Income Tax Act, 1961', contained legislative amendments. The Court agreed with the petitioners that Section 3 was solely for relaxation of time limits. Furthermore, the Court found that even if the Explanations were valid, the impugned notices were invalid because they were issued based on the erstwhile Section 147 ('reason to believe') and failed to comply with the amended Section 147 and the mandatory procedure under Section 148A. The Court also held that the Relaxation Act was not applicable to Assessment Years 2015-2016 and subsequent years, as the time limits for issuing notices for these years were not expiring within the period of applicability of Section 3(1) of the Relaxation Act. Consequently, all impugned notices were quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officers were permitted to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act.

The High Court held that the Explanations to Notification No. 20/2021 and Notification No. 38/2021 were ultra vires and therefore bad in law and null and void. The Court agreed with the assessee's submission that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act was a relaxation provision dealing with time limits and did not empower the Central Government to amend the substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. It was noted that Section 4 of the Relaxation Act, which did amend provisions, was enacted by the legislature itself. The Court further found that even if the Explanations were considered valid, the impugned notices were still bad in law as they failed to comply with the amended Section 147 and the procedural requirements of Section 148A. Additionally, the Court held that the Relaxation Act was not applicable to assessment years 2015-2016 and subsequent years, as the time limits for issuing notices for these years were not expiring within the period covered by Section 3(1) of the Relaxation Act. Consequently, all impugned notices issued under Section 148 were quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officers were permitted to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act.

The High Court held that the Explanations to Notification No. 20/2021 and Notification No. 38/2021 were ultra vires the Relaxation Act and therefore bad in law and null and void. The Court agreed with the assessee's submission that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act was a relaxation provision dealing with time limits and did not empower amendments to substantive provisions, unlike Section 4. The Court found that the impugned notices were bad in law for multiple reasons. Firstly, the Explanations did not cover the erstwhile Section 147, which empowers revenue to reopen subject to Sections 148 to 153, including Section 148A. Thus, even if the Explanations were valid, the procedure under Section 148A was not followed. Secondly, the assumption of jurisdiction was based on 'reason to believe,' a concept no longer recognized in the amended Section 147. Thirdly, the Relaxation Act was not applicable for Assessment Years 2015-2016 onwards, as the time limits for issuing notices for these years did not fall within the scope of Section 3(1) of the Relaxation Act. Consequently, all impugned notices were quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officers were permitted to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act, strictly complying with the statutory requirements.

The High Court held that the Explanations to Notification No. 20 of 2021 and Notification No. 38 of 2021 are ultra vires and therefore bad in law and null and void. The Court agreed with the petitioners that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act was a relaxation provision dealing with time limits and did not empower the Central Government to amend substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act; only Section 4 of the Relaxation Act amended the Act. The Court found that the notices were bad in law because they were issued based on the 'reason to believe' concept from the repealed Section 147, which is no longer recognized in the amended Section 147. Additionally, the amended Section 147 is subject to Sections 148 to 153, including the procedure in Section 148A, which was not followed. The Court also noted that the Relaxation Act was not applicable for Assessment Years 2015-2016 or subsequent years. Consequently, all impugned notices issued under Section 148 of the Act were quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officers were permitted to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act, strictly complying with the procedure.

The High Court held that the Explanations to Notification No. 20/2021 and Notification No. 38/2021 are ultra vires and therefore bad in law and null and void. The Court agreed with the assessee's submission that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act was a relaxation provision dealing with time limits and did not empower the Central Government to amend substantive provisions or revive repealed sections of the Income Tax Act. Section 4 of the Relaxation Act, which did amend provisions, was enacted by the legislature. The Court also found that even if the Explanations were valid, the impugned notices were bad in law because they were issued based on the erstwhile Section 147 ('reason to believe') and failed to comply with the amended Section 147 and the mandatory procedure under Section 148A. Additionally, the Court noted that the Relaxation Act was not applicable to assessment years 2015-2016 and subsequent years. Consequently, all impugned notices issued under Section 148 were quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officers were permitted to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act as amended by the Finance Act, 2021, strictly complying with the statutory procedures.

The High Court held that the Explanations to Notification No. 20/2021 and Notification No. 38/2021 were ultra vires and therefore bad in law and null and void. The Court agreed with the petitioners that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act was a relaxation provision dealing with time limits and did not empower the Central Government to amend or revive substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. It noted that Section 4 of the Relaxation Act was the provision that amended the Act, and no such power was delegated to the Central Government under Section 3. Furthermore, the Court found that even if the Explanations were considered valid, the impugned notices were still invalid because they were issued based on the erstwhile Section 147 ('reason to believe') and failed to comply with the mandatory procedure under the amended Section 147, including Section 148A. The Court also found that the Relaxation Act was not applicable to Assessment Years 2015-2016 onwards. Consequently, all the impugned notices issued under Section 148 of the Act were quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officers were permitted to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act as amended by the Finance Act, 2021, after strictly complying with the statutory provisions.

The High Court held that the Explanations to Notification No. 20/2021 and Notification No. 38/2021 are ultra vires and therefore bad in law and null and void. The Court agreed with the assessee's contention that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act was merely a relaxation provision dealing with time limits and did not empower the Central Government to amend substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act, unlike Section 4 which did. The Court further found that even if the Explanations were considered valid, the impugned notices were bad in law because they did not comply with the amended Section 147, which requires compliance with Sections 148 to 153, including the procedure under Section 148A. The Court also noted that the Relaxation Act was not applicable to Assessment Years 2015-2016 onwards. Consequently, all impugned notices issued under Section 148 of the Act were quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officers were permitted to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act, strictly complying with the statutory requirements. The Court was in respectful agreement with the views taken by various High Courts on this matter.