Rajasthan High Court Judgments — 2022

The High Court held that the explanations introduced by the CBDT notifications dated 31.03.2021 and 27.04.2021 were unconstitutional and invalid. The Court reasoned that the Relaxation Act, 2020, under Section 3(1), only empowered the Central Government to extend time limits for actions and compliances, not to issue explanations that altered the substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. The Court found that introducing an explanation that provided for the application of the old Section 148 provisions, as they stood before the Finance Act, 2021, plainly exceeded the jurisdiction of the CBDT as a subordinate legislation. Such subordinate legislation could not travel beyond the powers vested by the parent Act. The Court also noted that an explanation, even if termed clarificatory, cannot amend the provisions of the parent Act if the plain meaning of the statutory provision is clear. The Court disagreed with the view taken by the Chhattisgarh High Court in Palak Khatuja (supra), finding that the CBDT notifications did not defer the substitution of reassessment provisions framed under the Finance Act, 2021, and their effective date remained 01.04.2021. Consequently, the impugned notices were declared invalid and quashed. The Court allowed all the writ petitions and dismissed the appeals of the revenue.

The High Court held that the explanations introduced by the CBDT notifications dated March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, were unconstitutional and invalid. The Court reasoned that the Relaxation Act, 2020, only empowered the Central Government to extend time limits for actions and compliances, not to issue explanations that altered the interpretation or application of substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. The Court found that the CBDT, in issuing these explanations, plainly exceeded its jurisdiction as a subordinate legislation, as the subordinate legislation could not travel beyond the powers vested by the parent Act. The Court disagreed with the view of the Chhattisgarh High Court, stating that the substitution of reassessment provisions under the Finance Act, 2021, could not have been deferred by these notifications, and the amendments came into effect on April 1, 2021. Consequently, the notices impugned in the respective petitions were declared invalid and bad in law, and were quashed and set aside. The writ petitions were allowed, and the revenue's appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the explanations introduced by the CBDT notifications dated March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, were unconstitutional and invalid. The Court reasoned that the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, only empowered the Central Government to extend time limits, not to issue explanations that altered the statutory provisions of the Income Tax Act. The Court found that the CBDT, by introducing these explanations, had plainly exceeded its jurisdiction as a subordinate legislation, as subordinate legislation must operate within the confines of the powers vested by the parent Act. The Court disagreed with the Chhattisgarh High Court's interpretation in Palak Khatuja, stating that the notifications did not defer the substitution of reassessment provisions framed under the Finance Act, 2021, and the effective date of amendments remained April 1, 2021. Consequently, the notices impugned in the respective petitions were declared invalid and bad in law, and were quashed and set aside. The Court found no error in the learned Single Judge's decision to quash these notices.

The High Court held that the explanations introduced by the CBDT notifications dated March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, were unconstitutional and invalid. The Court reasoned that the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, only empowered the Central Government to extend time limits for actions and compliances, not to issue explanations that altered the substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. The CBDT, as a subordinate legislation, exceeded its jurisdiction by introducing an explanation that provided a clarification contrary to the plain meaning and interpretation of the statutory provisions. The Court found it doubtful that an explanation, even if termed clarificatory, could change the basis of statutory provisions or amend the parent Act. The Court disagreed with the view of the Chhattisgarh High Court, stating that the substitution of reassessment provisions under the Finance Act, 2021, were not deferred by the notifications, and the amendments came into effect from April 1, 2021. Consequently, the notices impugned in the petitions were declared invalid and bad in law and were quashed and set aside. All writ petitions were allowed, and appeals of the revenue were dismissed.

The High Court held that the explanations introduced by the CBDT notifications dated March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, were unconstitutional and invalid. The Court reasoned that under Section 3(1) of the Relaxation Act, 2020, the Central Government was empowered only to extend time limits, not to issue explanations that touched upon the provisions of the Income Tax Act itself. The Court found that the CBDT, as a subordinate legislation, had plainly exceeded its jurisdiction by introducing these explanations, which attempted to alter the basis of statutory provisions. The Court distinguished this from the power to extend time, stating that the subordinate legislation could not travel beyond the powers vested by the parent Act. The Court disagreed with the view that the notifications deferred the substitution of reassessment provisions under the Finance Act, 2021, and maintained that the amendments came into effect on April 1, 2021. Consequently, the Court found the notices impugned in the petitions to be invalid and bad in law, quashing and setting them aside. The Court expressly left no issue undecided.

The High Court held that the explanations introduced by the CBDT notifications dated 31.03.2021 and 27.04.2021 were unconstitutional and invalid. The Court reasoned that the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, only empowered the Central Government to extend time limits for actions and compliances, not to issue explanations that altered the basis of statutory provisions. The CBDT, as a subordinate legislation, exceeded its jurisdiction by introducing an explanation that sought to clarify that pre-amendment provisions would apply, effectively attempting to amend the parent Act or override the commencement date of the Finance Act, 2021. The Court found it doubtful that an explanation, even if termed clarificatory, could change the plain meaning of a statutory provision. The Court explicitly disagreed with the view that the notifications deferred the substitution of reassessment provisions under the Finance Act, 2021, stating that the amendments came into effect on 01.04.2021. Consequently, the notices impugned in the writ petitions were quashed and set aside as invalid and bad in law. All writ petitions were allowed.

The High Court held that the explanations introduced by the CBDT notifications dated March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, were unconstitutional and invalid. The Court reasoned that the Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, empowered the Central Government only to extend time limits for actions and compliances, not to issue explanations that altered the basis of statutory provisions. The CBDT, as a subordinate legislation, had plainly exceeded its jurisdiction by introducing an explanation that sought to clarify or modify the application of Section 148 and Section 149, especially when the Finance Act, 2021, had already brought about significant changes. The Court found it doubtful that an explanation, even if termed clarificatory, could change the plain meaning of a statutory provision or amend the parent Act. The Court disagreed with the view taken by the Chhattisgarh High Court in Palak Khatuja (supra), stating that the substitution of reassessment provisions under the Finance Act, 2021, were not deferred by the CBDT notifications, and their effective date remained April 1, 2021. Consequently, the notices impugned in the writ petitions were held to be invalid and bad in law. The Court quashed and set aside these notices. No issue was expressly left undecided.

The High Court held that the explanations introduced by the CBDT notifications dated 31.03.2021 and 27.04.2021 were unconstitutional and invalid. The Court reasoned that the power vested in the Central Government under Section 3(1) of the Relaxation Act, 2020, was limited to extending time limits for action and compliance, not to issue explanations that altered the substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. The CBDT, as a subordinate legislation, exceeded its jurisdiction by introducing an explanation that effectively sought to revive the old Section 148 provisions, thereby travelling beyond the powers granted by the parent Act. The Court found it doubtful that an explanation, even if termed clarificatory, could change the plain meaning of statutory provisions or amend the parent Act. The Court disagreed with the view that the notifications deferred the substitution of reassessment provisions under the Finance Act, 2021. Consequently, the notices impugned in the respective petitions were quashed and set aside as invalid and bad in law. The appeals of the revenue were dismissed.

The High Court held that the explanations introduced by the CBDT notifications dated March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, were unconstitutional and invalid. The Court reasoned that the Relaxation Act, 2020, under Section 3(1), only empowered the Central Government to extend time limits for actions and compliances, not to issue explanations that clarified or altered the substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. The CBDT, as a subordinate legislation, had plainly exceeded its jurisdiction by introducing an explanation that provided that for the purposes of Section 148 notice, the provisions as they stood on March 31, 2021, before the commencement of the Finance Act, 2021, would apply. The Court found that such an explanation could not change the basis of statutory provisions and could not amend the parent Act. The Court respectfully disagreed with the Chhattisgarh High Court's view in Palak Khatuja, stating that the substitution of reassessment provisions by the Finance Act, 2021, which came into effect on April 1, 2021, could not be deferred by the CBDT notifications. Consequently, the notices impugned in the writ petitions were declared invalid and quashed. All writ petitions were allowed, and the revenue's appeals were dismissed.

The High Court held that the notices impugned in the respective petitions are invalid and bad in law, and consequently quashed and set aside. The Court found that the CBDT, by introducing an explanation in its notifications dated 31.03.2021 and 27.04.2021, which provided that the provisions as they stood on 31.03.2021 before the commencement of the Finance Act, 2021, would apply for the purpose of issuing notices under Section 148, plainly exceeded its jurisdiction as a subordinate legislation. The Court reasoned that the subordinate legislation could not travel beyond the powers vested in the Central Government by the parent Act, which was the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020. The parent Act only authorized the extension of time limits, not the introduction of explanations that altered the basis of statutory provisions. The Court explicitly disagreed with the view taken by the Chhattisgarh High Court in Palak Khatuja (supra), stating that the substitution of reassessment provisions under the Finance Act, 2021, were not deferred and their effective date remained 01.04.2021. Therefore, the explanations in the notifications were declared unconstitutional and invalid. The Court allowed all the writ petitions and dismissed the appeals of the revenue.

The High Court held that the explanations introduced by the CBDT notifications dated 31.03.2021 and 27.04.2021 are unconstitutional and invalid. The Court reasoned that the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, only empowered the Central Government to extend time limits for action and compliance, not to issue explanations that altered the basis of statutory provisions. Introducing an explanation that effectively changed the application of Section 148 and Section 149/151, by stating that pre-amendment provisions would apply, exceeded the delegated authority of the CBDT as a subordinate legislation. Such subordinate legislation cannot travel beyond the powers vested by the parent Act and cannot amend its provisions. The Court disagreed with the Chhattisgarh High Court's view that the notifications deferred the substitution of reassessment provisions. Consequently, the notices impugned in the petitions were declared invalid and bad in law, and were quashed and set aside. All writ petitions were allowed, and appeals of the revenue were dismissed.

The High Court held that the explanations introduced by the CBDT notifications dated 31.03.2021 and 27.04.2021 were unconstitutional and invalid. The Court reasoned that the Relaxation Act, 2020, under Section 3(1), only empowered the Central Government to extend time limits for actions and compliances, not to issue explanations that altered the interpretation or application of statutory provisions. The CBDT, as a subordinate legislation, exceeded its jurisdiction by introducing an explanation that provided a clarification which, in effect, changed the basis of the statutory provisions and allowed the use of pre-amendment Section 148 provisions beyond the intended period. The Court found it doubtful that an explanation, even if termed clarificatory, could amend the parent Act's provisions when their plain meaning was clear. The Court respectfully disagreed with the Chhattisgarh High Court's view, stating that the substitution of reassessment provisions under the Finance Act, 2021, which came into effect from 01.04.2021, could not have been deferred by these notifications. Consequently, the notices impugned in the writ petitions were declared invalid and quashed.

The High Court held that the explanations introduced by the CBDT notifications dated March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, were unconstitutional and invalid. The Court reasoned that the Relaxation Act, 2020, under Section 3(1), only empowered the Central Government to extend time limits for actions and compliances, not to issue explanations that touched upon the provisions of the Income Tax Act. The CBDT, as a subordinate legislation, exceeded its jurisdiction by introducing an explanation that provided a clarification contrary to the plain meaning of the statutory provisions and effectively amended the parent Act. The Court disagreed with the view that the notifications deferred the substitution of reassessment provisions under the Finance Act, 2021, stating that the amendments came into effect on April 1, 2021. Consequently, the notices impugned in the respective petitions were declared invalid and quashed. The Court noted that two Division Benches of the Allahabad and Delhi High Courts had taken a similar view, and two learned Single Judges of the Calcutta and Rajasthan High Courts had followed this trend, while acknowledging a different view taken by a Single Judge of the Chhattisgarh High Court.

The High Court held that the explanations introduced by the CBDT notifications dated March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, were unconstitutional and invalid. The Court reasoned that the Relaxation Act, 2020, only empowered the Central Government to extend time limits for actions and compliances, not to issue explanations that altered the substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. The CBDT, as a subordinate legislation, exceeded its jurisdiction by introducing an explanation that effectively sought to amend the parent Act or change the basis of statutory provisions. The Court found that such subordinate legislation could not travel beyond the powers vested by the parent Act and could not, under the guise of clarification, amend clear statutory provisions. The Court disagreed with the view that the notifications deferred the substitution of reassessment provisions framed under the Finance Act, 2021, stating that the amendments coming into effect from April 1, 2021, remained unchanged. Consequently, the notices impugned in the respective petitions were declared invalid and quashed. The appeals of the revenue were dismissed.

The High Court held that the notifications dated March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, issued by the CBDT, were unconstitutional and invalid. The Court reasoned that the Relaxation Act, 2020, under which these notifications were purportedly issued, only granted the power to extend time limits for compliances. The introduction of an explanation by the CBDT, which clarified that the pre-amended Section 148 provisions would apply for the purpose of issuing notices under Section 148, Section 149, and Section 151, plainly exceeded the delegated jurisdiction. Subordinate legislation cannot travel beyond the powers vested by the parent Act. The Court found it doubtful that an explanation, even if termed clarificatory, could change the fundamental basis of statutory provisions or amend the parent Act. The Court disagreed with the view taken by the Chhattisgarh High Court in Palak Khatuja (supra), which held that the notices were valid. The High Court concluded that the substitution of reassessment provisions by the Finance Act, 2021, came into effect on April 1, 2021, and could not be deferred by the CBDT notifications. Consequently, the notices impugned in the petitions were declared invalid and quashed.

The High Court held that the explanations introduced by the CBDT notifications dated 31.03.2021 and 27.04.2021 were unconstitutional and invalid. The Court reasoned that the power vested in the Central Government under Section 3(1) of the Relaxation Act, 2020, was limited to extending time limits for action and compliance, and did not include the power to issue explanations that effectively altered or clarified the substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. The Court found that the CBDT, by introducing these explanations, had plainly exceeded its jurisdiction as a subordinate legislation. The subordinate legislation could not travel beyond the powers vested by the parent Act, nor could it amend the provisions of the parent Act under the guise of clarification. The Court disagreed with the view taken by the Chhattisgarh High Court in Palak Khatuja, stating that the substitution of reassessment provisions by the Finance Act, 2021, could not have been deferred by these notifications. Consequently, the notices impugned in the respective petitions were declared invalid and bad in law, and were quashed and set aside. All writ petitions were allowed, and appeals of the revenue were dismissed.

The High Court held that the explanations introduced by the CBDT notifications dated 31.03.2021 and 27.04.2021 were unconstitutional and invalid. The Court reasoned that the Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, only empowered the Central Government to extend time limits for actions and compliances, not to issue explanations that altered the applicability of statutory provisions. The CBDT, as a subordinate legislation, had plainly exceeded its jurisdiction by introducing an explanation that effectively sought to amend or defer the operation of the Income Tax Act's provisions, particularly concerning the reassessment procedures introduced by the Finance Act, 2021. The Court found it doubtful that an explanation, even if termed clarificatory, could change the plain meaning of a statutory provision or amend the parent Act. The Court explicitly disagreed with the view taken by the Chhattisgarh High Court in Palak Khatuja (supra), stating that the substitution of reassessment provisions under the Finance Act, 2021, could not have been deferred by these notifications. Consequently, the notices impugned in the writ petitions were quashed and set aside as invalid and bad in law. All writ petitions were allowed, and the appeals of the revenue were dismissed.

The High Court held that the explanations introduced by the CBDT notifications dated 31.03.2021 and 27.04.2021 were unconstitutional and invalid. The Court reasoned that the Relaxation Act, 2020, under Section 3(1), only empowered the Central Government to extend time limits for actions and compliances, not to issue explanations that altered the basis of statutory provisions. The CBDT, as a subordinate legislation, exceeded its jurisdiction by introducing an explanation that provided clarification on the applicability of Section 148 and Section 149/151, effectively attempting to amend the parent Act. The Court found that subordinate legislation cannot travel beyond the powers vested by the parent Act and that an explanation cannot change the plain meaning of a statutory provision. The Court disagreed with the view of the Chhattisgarh High Court, stating that the CBDT notifications did not defer the substitution of reassessment provisions under the Finance Act, 2021, and the amendments effective from 01.04.2021 remained applicable. Consequently, the notices impugned in the writ petitions were declared invalid and quashed. The Court allowed all the writ petitions and dismissed the appeals of the revenue.

The High Court held that the explanations introduced by the CBDT notifications dated 31.03.2021 and 27.04.2021 were unconstitutional and invalid. The Court reasoned that the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, only empowered the Central Government to extend time limits for actions and compliances, not to issue explanations that altered the basis of statutory provisions of the Income Tax Act. The CBDT, as a subordinate legislation, exceeded its jurisdiction by introducing these explanations, which attempted to clarify that the pre-amendment Section 148 provisions would apply. The Court found that such explanations could not amend the parent Act's provisions and that the date of the amendments coming into effect remained 01.04.2021. Consequently, the notices impugned in the writ petitions were declared invalid and quashed. The Court noted that while a Single Judge of the Chhattisgarh High Court had taken a different view, it was unable to persuade itself to accept that analysis. The High Court allowed all the writ petitions.

The High Court held that the explanations introduced by the CBDT notifications dated 31.03.2021 and 27.04.2021 were unconstitutional and invalid. The Court reasoned that the Relaxation Act, 2020, only empowered the Central Government to extend time limits for compliances, not to introduce explanations that altered the basis of statutory provisions. The CBDT, as a subordinate legislation, exceeded its jurisdiction by issuing explanations that effectively amended the parent Act or introduced provisions beyond the scope of the delegation. The Court found that these explanations could not change the plain meaning of the statutory provisions or the date of commencement of the amendments under the Finance Act, 2021. Consequently, the notices issued under Section 148 based on these invalid explanations were quashed and set aside. The Court noted that while a single judge of the Chhattisgarh High Court had taken a different view, it was unable to persuade itself to accept that analysis. All writ petitions were allowed.

The High Court held that the explanations introduced by the CBDT notifications dated 31.03.2021 and 27.04.2021 were unconstitutional and invalid. The Court reasoned that the CBDT, in issuing these notifications, plainly exceeded its jurisdiction as a subordinate legislation. The power vested in the Central Government under Section 3(1) of the Relaxation Act, 2020, was to extend time limits, not to issue explanations that altered the fundamental provisions of the Income Tax Act. The Court found it doubtful that an explanation, even if termed clarificatory, could change the basis of statutory provisions or amend the parent Act. The Court disagreed with the Chhattisgarh High Court's view that the notifications deferred the substitution of reassessment provisions. The Court concluded that the amendments by the Finance Act, 2021, came into effect on 01.04.2021, and the notices impugned in the writ petitions were invalid and bad in law. Consequently, the notices were quashed and set aside. All writ petitions were allowed, and the appeals of the revenue were dismissed.

The High Court held that the explanations introduced by the CBDT notifications dated 31.03.2021 and 27.04.2021, which stipulated that for Section 148 notices, the provisions as they stood on 31.03.2021 before the Finance Act, 2021, would apply, were unconstitutional and invalid. The Court reasoned that these explanations, in the guise of clarification, exceeded the delegated powers granted under Section 3(1) of the Relaxation Act, 2020. Subordinate legislation cannot travel beyond the powers vested in it by the parent Act, nor can it amend the provisions of the parent Act. The Court disagreed with the view taken by the Chhattisgarh High Court, stating that the notifications did not defer the substitution of reassessment provisions as framed under the Finance Act, 2021, and the amendments effective from 01.04.2021 remained in force. Consequently, the reassessment notices impugned in the petitions were found to be invalid and bad in law and were quashed and set aside. The Court found no error in the learned Single Judge's decision to quash these notices.

The High Court held that the explanations introduced by the CBDT notifications dated March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, were unconstitutional and invalid. The Court reasoned that the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, only empowered the Central Government to extend time limits for actions and compliances, not to issue explanations that affected the interpretation or application of substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. The CBDT, as a subordinate legislation, had exceeded its jurisdiction by introducing an explanation that effectively sought to amend the provisions of the parent Act. The Court found that such an explanation could not be permitted to override the plain meaning of the statutory provisions. The Court explicitly disagreed with the view taken by the Chhattisgarh High Court in Palak Khatuja (supra), stating that the substitution of reassessment provisions under the Finance Act, 2021, were not deferred by the notifications. Consequently, the notices impugned in the writ petitions were declared invalid and quashed. All writ petitions were allowed, and the appeals of the revenue were dismissed.

The High Court held that the explanations introduced by the CBDT notifications dated March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, were unconstitutional and invalid. The Court reasoned that under Section 3(1) of the Relaxation Act, 2020, the Central Government was empowered only to extend time limits for actions and compliances. Issuing an explanation that provided a clarification on the applicability of Section 148, Section 149, and Section 151, by stating that the provisions as they stood before the Finance Act, 2021, would apply, plainly exceeded the CBDT's jurisdiction as a subordinate legislation. The Court found that the subordinate legislation could not travel beyond the powers vested by the parent Act and that an explanation cannot amend the provisions of the parent Act. The Court disagreed with the view of the Chhattisgarh High Court in Palak Khatuja (supra), stating that the substitution of reassessment provisions under the Finance Act, 2021, were not deferred by the notifications, and their effective date remained April 1, 2021. Consequently, the notices impugned in the respective petitions were found to be invalid and bad in law. The Court quashed and set aside these notices. The learned Single Judge's decision to quash these notices was upheld.

The High Court held that the explanations introduced by the CBDT notifications dated 31.03.2021 and 27.04.2021 were unconstitutional and invalid. The Court reasoned that the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, specifically Section 3(1), only granted the Central Government the power to extend time limits for actions and compliances. Issuing an explanation that provided a clarification regarding the applicability of Section 148 and Section 149/151 provisions, by referring to the pre-amended state of law, plainly exceeded the delegated jurisdiction. Subordinate legislation cannot travel beyond the powers vested in it by the parent Act. The Court found it doubtful that an explanation, even in the guise of clarification, could change the fundamental basis of statutory provisions. If the plain meaning of a statutory provision is clear, a subordinate legislature cannot amend it by adopting a different position in an explanation. The Court disagreed with the view taken by the Chhattisgarh High Court in Palak Khatuja (supra), which held that the notices were valid because the application of Section 148 was deferred. The High Court concluded that the substitution of reassessment provisions under the Finance Act, 2021, which came into effect from 01.04.2021, could not have been deferred by these notifications. Consequently, the notices impugned in the respective petitions were declared invalid and quashed.

The High Court held that the explanations introduced by the CBDT notifications dated March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, were unconstitutional and invalid. The Court reasoned that the Relaxation Act, 2020, under Section 3(1), only granted the Central Government the power to extend time limits for actions and compliances. Issuing an explanation that clarified the applicability of Section 148 provisions as they stood before the Finance Act, 2021, went beyond the scope of this delegated power. The Court emphasized that subordinate legislation cannot amend the provisions of the parent Act, even under the guise of a clarification. The Court disagreed with the Chhattisgarh High Court's reasoning, stating that the substitution of reassessment provisions under the Finance Act, 2021, which came into effect on April 1, 2021, could not have been deferred by these notifications. Consequently, the notices impugned in the writ petitions were declared invalid and quashed. The Court explicitly stated that the learned Single Judge committed no error in quashing these notices.

The High Court held that the explanations introduced by the CBDT notifications dated March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, were unconstitutional and invalid. The Court reasoned that the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, under Section 3(1), only empowered the Central Government to extend time limits for actions and compliances, not to issue explanations that altered the substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. The CBDT, as a subordinate legislation, exceeded its jurisdiction by introducing an explanation that effectively sought to apply the old Section 148 provisions, thereby attempting to amend the parent Act. The Court found it doubtful that an explanation, even if termed clarificatory, could change the plain meaning of statutory provisions. The Court disagreed with the view taken by the Chhattisgarh High Court in Palak Khatuja, stating that the substitution of reassessment provisions under the Finance Act, 2021, which came into effect from April 1, 2021, could not have been deferred by these notifications. Consequently, the notices impugned in the writ petitions were quashed and set aside as invalid and bad in law. All writ petitions were allowed, and the revenue's appeals were dismissed.

The High Court held that the explanations introduced by the CBDT notifications dated 31.03.2021 and 27.04.2021 were unconstitutional and invalid. The Court reasoned that the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, specifically Section 3(1), only empowered the Central Government to extend time limits for actions and compliances, not to issue explanations that affected the substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. The CBDT, as a subordinate legislation, had exceeded its jurisdiction by introducing an explanation that sought to clarify or modify the application of Section 148 and Section 149, which was not part of the delegated power. The Court found it doubtful that an explanation, even if termed clarificatory, could alter the plain meaning of statutory provisions. The Court disagreed with the view taken by the Chhattisgarh High Court in Palak Khatuja (supra), stating that the substitution of reassessment provisions under the Finance Act, 2021, were not deferred by the notifications, and their effective date remained 01.04.2021. Consequently, the notices impugned in the petitions were declared invalid and quashed. The appeals of the revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the explanations introduced by the CBDT notifications dated 31.03.2021 and 27.04.2021 were unconstitutional and invalid. The reasoning was that the CBDT, as a subordinate legislation, had exceeded its powers granted under Section 3(1) of the Relaxation Act, 2020. This section only authorized the Central Government to extend time limits by issuing notifications, not to introduce explanations that clarified or altered the substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal found that these explanations, by attempting to apply pre-amendment provisions for Section 148 notices, effectively sought to amend the parent Act, which is impermissible for subordinate legislation. The Tribunal disagreed with the view of the Chhattisgarh High Court in Palak Khatuja (supra), stating that the substitution of reassessment provisions under the Finance Act, 2021, could not have been deferred by these notifications, and their effective date remained 01.04.2021. Consequently, the reassessment notices impugned in the petitions were declared invalid and quashed. The Tribunal allowed all the writ petitions and dismissed the appeals of the revenue.

The High Court held that the explanations inserted by the CBDT in its notifications dated 31.03.2021 and 27.04.2021 were unconstitutional and invalid. The Court reasoned that the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, specifically Section 3(1), only granted the Central Government the power to extend time limits for actions and compliances. Issuing an explanation that provided for the application of pre-amended provisions of the Income Tax Act, particularly concerning Section 148, went beyond the scope of this delegated power. The Court found that this subordinate legislation travelled beyond the powers vested in the government by the parent Act and could not amend the provisions of the parent Act under the guise of clarification. The Court disagreed with the view taken by the Chhattisgarh High Court in Palak Khatuja (supra), which held that the notices were valid because the notifications deferred the application of the amended Section 148A. The High Court concluded that the substitution of reassessment provisions under the Finance Act, 2021, which came into effect from 01.04.2021, could not have been deferred by these notifications. Consequently, the notices impugned in the respective petitions were declared invalid and quashed.

The High Court held that the explanations introduced by the CBDT notifications dated 31.03.2021 and 27.04.2021 were unconstitutional and invalid. The Court reasoned that the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, only empowered the Central Government to extend time limits for compliances, not to issue explanations that altered the substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. The CBDT, as a subordinate legislation, had exceeded its jurisdiction by introducing an explanation that effectively changed the basis of statutory provisions, particularly concerning the applicability of Section 148 notices. The Court found that the plain meaning of the statutory provision was clear, and a subordinate legislature could not amend the parent Act through an explanation. The Court disagreed with the view taken by the Chhattisgarh High Court in Palak Khatuja (supra), stating that the substitution of reassessment provisions under the Finance Act, 2021, could not have been deferred by the CBDT notifications. Consequently, the notices impugned in the writ petitions were declared invalid and quashed.

The High Court held that the explanations introduced by the CBDT notifications dated March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, were unconstitutional and invalid. The Court reasoned that the Relaxation Act, 2020, only empowered the Central Government to extend time limits for actions and compliances, not to issue explanations that altered the provisions of the Income Tax Act. The CBDT, in introducing these explanations, plainly exceeded its jurisdiction as a subordinate legislation. The Court found that subordinate legislation cannot travel beyond the powers vested by the parent Act and cannot amend the parent Act under the guise of clarification. The Court disagreed with the view that the notifications deferred the substitution of reassessment provisions under the Finance Act, 2021, stating that the amendments came into effect on April 1, 2021. Consequently, the notices impugned in the petitions were declared invalid and quashed. The Court noted that similar views were taken by the Allahabad and Delhi High Courts, and by learned Single Judges of the Calcutta and Rajasthan High Courts, while disagreeing with the Chhattisgarh High Court's contrary view.

The High Court held that the notifications dated March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, issued by the CBDT, which introduced an explanation stating that for the purposes of Section 148 notices, the provisions as they stood on March 31, 2021, would apply, were unconstitutional and invalid. The Court reasoned that the power granted under Section 3(1) of the Relaxation Act, 2020, was only to extend time limits for action and compliance, not to issue explanations that altered the basis of statutory provisions. The CBDT, as a subordinate legislation, exceeded its jurisdiction by travelling beyond the powers vested in it by the parent Act. The Court found that these explanations could not amend the provisions of the parent Act. The Court disagreed with the view taken by the Chhattisgarh High Court in Palak Khatuja (supra), stating that the substitution of reassessment provisions by the Finance Act, 2021, was not deferred and the amendments came into effect from April 1, 2021. Consequently, the impugned notices were declared invalid and quashed. All writ petitions were allowed, and appeals of the revenue were dismissed.

The High Court held that the explanations introduced by the CBDT notifications dated March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, were unconstitutional and invalid. The Court reasoned that the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, under Section 3(1), only empowered the Central Government to extend time limits for compliances, not to issue explanations that altered the substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. The CBDT, as a subordinate legislation, exceeded its jurisdiction by introducing these explanations, which attempted to change the basis of statutory provisions. The Court found it doubtful that an explanation, even if termed clarificatory, could alter the plain meaning of a statutory provision. The Court disagreed with the view that the notifications deferred the substitution of reassessment provisions under the Finance Act, 2021, stating that the amendments came into effect from April 1, 2021. Consequently, the notices impugned in the respective petitions were declared invalid and bad in law. The Court quashed and set aside these notices. The learned Single Judge's decision to quash these notices was upheld. The ratio decidendi is that subordinate legislation cannot amend or alter the substantive provisions of a parent Act under the guise of clarification or extension of time, and any such attempt renders the subordinate legislation invalid.

The High Court held that the explanations introduced by the CBDT notifications dated 31.03.2021 and 27.04.2021 were unconstitutional and invalid. The Court reasoned that these explanations, by stating that pre-amendment provisions of Section 148 would apply, exceeded the delegated powers granted to the Central Government under Section 3(1) of the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020. The Court found that the subordinate legislation could not travel beyond the powers vested by the parent Act and could not amend the provisions of the Income Tax Act under the guise of a clarification. The Court disagreed with the view taken by the Chhattisgarh High Court in Palak Khatuja, holding that the notifications did not defer the substitution of reassessment provisions by the Finance Act, 2021, and the amendments came into effect from 01.04.2021. Consequently, all impugned notices issued under Section 148 were declared invalid and quashed. The Court allowed all the writ petitions.

The High Court held that the explanations introduced by the CBDT notifications dated March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, were unconstitutional and invalid. The Court reasoned that the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, under Section 3(1), only granted the Central Government the power to extend time limits for actions and compliances. Issuing an explanation that clarified the applicability of Section 148 provisions as they stood before the Finance Act, 2021, plainly exceeded this delegated jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that subordinate legislation cannot travel beyond the powers vested by the parent Act and cannot amend the provisions of the parent Act under the guise of a clarification. The Court disagreed with the Chhattisgarh High Court's view, stating that the substitution of reassessment provisions by the Finance Act, 2021, could not have been deferred by these notifications, and the amendments were effective from April 1, 2021. Consequently, the notices impugned in the respective petitions were found to be invalid and bad in law and were quashed and set aside. The appeals of the revenue were dismissed.

The High Court held that the explanations introduced by the CBDT notifications dated March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, were unconstitutional and invalid. The Court reasoned that the power delegated to the Central Government under Section 3(1) of the Relaxation Act, 2020, was limited to extending time limits for actions and compliances. Introducing an explanation that altered the basis of statutory provisions, particularly by providing that pre-amendment provisions would apply, exceeded the scope of this delegated power. The Court found that subordinate legislation cannot travel beyond the powers vested by the parent Act and cannot amend the parent Act's provisions under the guise of clarification. The Court noted that while the Chhattisgarh High Court had taken a different view, it was unable to persuade itself to accept that analysis. The principle established is that subordinate legislation must strictly adhere to the parent Act's mandate and cannot introduce substantive changes or reinterpretations that go beyond the delegated authority. Consequently, the impugned notices issued under Section 148 were quashed and set aside.

The High Court held that the explanations introduced by the CBDT notifications dated 31.03.2021 and 27.04.2021 were unconstitutional and invalid. The Court reasoned that the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, only empowered the Central Government to extend time limits, not to issue explanations that altered the interpretation or application of statutory provisions. The CBDT, in issuing these explanations, plainly exceeded its jurisdiction as a subordinate legislation, as it attempted to amend the provisions of the parent Act. The Court disagreed with the view of the Chhattisgarh High Court, stating that the substitution of reassessment provisions under the Finance Act, 2021, were not deferred by the CBDT notifications, and their effective date remained 01.04.2021. Consequently, the notices impugned in the writ petitions were found to be invalid and bad in law. The Court quashed and set aside these notices. The writ petitions were allowed, and the appeals of the revenue were dismissed.

The High Court held that the explanations introduced by the CBDT in its notifications dated 31.03.2021 and 27.04.2021 were unconstitutional and invalid. The Court reasoned that the CBDT, as a subordinate legislation, exceeded the powers vested in it by the parent Act, the Relaxation Act, 2020. The parent Act only permitted the extension of time limits, not the introduction of explanations that effectively altered or clarified statutory provisions in a manner inconsistent with the parent Act. The Court found it doubtful that an explanation, even if termed clarificatory, could change the fundamental basis of statutory provisions or amend the parent Act. The Court disagreed with the view that the notifications deferred the substitution of reassessment provisions under the Finance Act, 2021, stating that the amendments came into effect on 01.04.2021. Consequently, the reassessment notices impugned in the writ petitions were declared invalid and quashed. The High Court allowed all the writ petitions and dismissed the appeals of the revenue.

The High Court held that the explanations introduced by the CBDT notifications dated 31.03.2021 and 27.04.2021 were unconstitutional and invalid. The Court reasoned that the power vested in the Central Government under Section 3(1) of the Relaxation Act, 2020, was limited to extending time limits for actions and compliances, and did not include the power to issue explanations that altered the basis of statutory provisions. Introducing an explanation that provided a clarification contrary to the plain meaning of the statutory provisions, especially when it aimed to change the very basis of the Income Tax Act's provisions, was deemed an overreach of delegated legislative power. The Court found that subordinate legislation must operate within the confines of the powers granted by the parent Act and cannot amend its provisions. The Court disagreed with the view taken by the Chhattisgarh High Court, stating that the substitution of reassessment provisions under the Finance Act, 2021, were not deferred by the notifications, and their effective date remained 01.04.2021. Consequently, the notices impugned in the petitions were declared invalid and quashed. All writ petitions were allowed, and the revenue's appeals were dismissed.

The High Court held that the explanations introduced by the CBDT notifications dated March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, were unconstitutional and invalid. The Court reasoned that the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, only empowered the Central Government to extend time limits for actions and compliances. Issuing an explanation that altered the basis of statutory provisions, particularly concerning the applicability of Section 148 notices under the old regime, went beyond the scope of this delegated power. The Court found that subordinate legislation cannot amend the provisions of a parent Act, even under the guise of clarification. The plain meaning of the statutory provision and its interpretation being clear, a subordinate legislature cannot be permitted to adopt a different position in an explanation and describe it as clarificatory. The Court disagreed with the view taken by the Chhattisgarh High Court in Palak Khatuja, stating that the substitution of reassessment provisions under the Finance Act, 2021, could not have been deferred by these notifications, and the amendments were effective from April 1, 2021. Consequently, the notices impugned in the respective petitions were found to be invalid and bad in law, and were quashed and set aside. The appeals of the revenue were dismissed.

The High Court held that the explanations introduced by the CBDT notifications dated March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, were unconstitutional and invalid. The Court reasoned that the power vested in the Central Government under Section 3(1) of the Relaxation Act, 2020, was limited to extending time limits for action and compliance, not to issue explanations that altered the basis of statutory provisions. The Court found that the CBDT, by introducing these explanations, plainly exceeded its jurisdiction as a subordinate legislation, as it attempted to amend the provisions of the parent Act. The Court disagreed with the view that the notifications deferred the substitution of reassessment provisions under the Finance Act, 2021, stating that the amendments came into effect on April 1, 2021. Consequently, the notices impugned in the petitions were found to be invalid and bad in law. The Court quashed and set aside these notices. The High Court found no error in the learned Single Judge's decision to quash these notices.

The High Court held that the notifications dated 31.03.2021 and 27.04.2021, issued by the CBDT, were unconstitutional and invalid. The Court reasoned that the power granted under Section 3(1) of the Relaxation Act, 2020, was limited to extending time limits for actions and compliances, not to issue explanations that altered the basis of statutory provisions. The Court found that the introduction of an explanation by the CBDT, stating that the pre-amendment provisions of Section 148 would apply for the purpose of issuing notices under Section 148, plainly exceeded its jurisdiction as a subordinate legislation. Such an explanation could not amend the provisions of the parent Act. The Court disagreed with the view of the Chhattisgarh High Court in Palak Khatuja (supra), finding that the substitution of reassessment provisions by the Finance Act, 2021, could not have been deferred by these notifications. Consequently, the notices impugned in the writ petitions were declared invalid and quashed. The Court explicitly left no issue undecided.

The High Court held that the explanations introduced by the CBDT notifications dated March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, were unconstitutional and invalid. The Court reasoned that the Relaxation Act, 2020, under Section 3(1), only empowered the Central Government to extend time limits for actions and compliances, not to issue explanations that altered the basis of statutory provisions. Introducing an explanation that provided a clarification contrary to the plain meaning of the statutory provisions and the commencement date of the Finance Act, 2021, was an overreach of the delegated legislative power. The Court found that the subordinate legislation could not travel beyond the powers vested by the parent Act. The Court disagreed with the view that the notifications deferred the substitution of reassessment provisions under the Finance Act, 2021, stating that the amendments came into effect on April 1, 2021. Consequently, the notices impugned in the petitions were declared invalid and bad in law and were quashed and set aside. The Court allowed all the writ petitions and dismissed the appeals of the revenue.

The High Court held that the explanations introduced by the CBDT notifications dated 31.03.2021 and 27.04.2021 were unconstitutional and invalid. The Court reasoned that the Relaxation Act, 2020, under Section 3(1), only empowered the Central Government to extend time limits for compliance, not to issue explanations that altered the basis of statutory provisions. The CBDT, as a subordinate legislation, exceeded its jurisdiction by introducing an explanation that sought to apply the pre-amendment provisions of Section 148, thereby attempting to amend the parent Act. The Court found that the subordinate legislation could not travel beyond the powers vested in it by the parent Act. The Court disagreed with the view of the Chhattisgarh High Court in Palak Khatuja (supra), stating that the notifications did not defer the substitution of reassessment provisions framed under the Finance Act, 2021, and the effective date of amendments remained 01.04.2021. Consequently, the notices impugned in the writ petitions were found to be invalid and bad in law. The Court quashed and set aside these notices.

The High Court held that the explanations introduced by the CBDT notifications dated 31.03.2021 and 27.04.2021 were unconstitutional and invalid. The Court reasoned that the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, under which these notifications were issued, only granted the power to extend time limits for actions and compliances. The CBDT, in introducing an explanation that dictated the applicability of Section 148 provisions as they stood before the Finance Act, 2021, plainly exceeded its delegated authority. The Court emphasized that subordinate legislation cannot travel beyond the powers vested in it by the parent Act and cannot amend the provisions of the parent Act, even under the guise of clarification. The Court disagreed with the view taken by the Chhattisgarh High Court in Palak Khatuja (supra), finding that the notifications did not defer the substitution of reassessment provisions framed under the Finance Act, 2021, and their effective date remained 01.04.2021. Consequently, the reassessment notices impugned in the petitions were found to be invalid and bad in law and were quashed and set aside. All writ petitions were allowed.

The High Court held that the Explanations introduced by the CBDT in its notifications dated 31.03.2021 and 27.04.2021 were unconstitutional and invalid. The Court reasoned that the Relaxation Act, 2020, under Section 3(1), only empowered the Central Government to extend time limits for actions and compliances, not to issue explanations that altered the basis of statutory provisions. The CBDT, as a subordinate legislation, exceeded its jurisdiction by introducing an explanation that provided a clarification contrary to the plain meaning of the statutory provisions and effectively sought to amend the parent Act. The Court found it doubtful that an explanation, even if termed clarificatory, could change the fundamental basis of statutory provisions. The Court disagreed with the view of the Chhattisgarh High Court in Palak Khatuja (supra), which held that the notices were valid because the application of Section 148 was deferred. The Court concluded that the substitution of reassessment provisions under the Finance Act, 2021, were not deferred and their commencement date remained 01.04.2021. Consequently, the notices impugned in the respective petitions were declared invalid and quashed.

The High Court held that the explanations inserted by the CBDT notifications dated March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, were unconstitutional and invalid. The Court reasoned that the Relaxation Act, 2020, under which the notifications were issued, only empowered the Central Government to extend time limits for actions and compliances. Issuing an explanation that altered the application of statutory provisions, particularly by providing that the pre-amendment Section 148 would apply, went beyond the delegated powers. Subordinate legislation cannot travel beyond the powers vested in it by the parent Act. The Court found that these explanations, in the guise of clarification, attempted to amend the provisions of the parent Act, which is impermissible. The Court disagreed with the view that the notifications deferred the substitution of reassessment provisions under the Finance Act, 2021, stating that the amendments came into effect on April 1, 2021. Consequently, the notices impugned in the petitions were declared invalid and quashed. The writ petitions were allowed, and the appeals of the revenue were dismissed.

The High Court held that the explanations introduced by the CBDT notifications dated 31.03.2021 and 27.04.2021 were unconstitutional and invalid. The Court reasoned that the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, only empowered the Central Government to extend time limits for actions and compliances, not to issue explanations that altered the substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. The CBDT, as a subordinate legislation, exceeded its jurisdiction by introducing an explanation that effectively sought to apply the old Section 148 provisions, thereby attempting to amend the parent Act or circumvent the legislative intent of the Finance Act, 2021. The Court found it doubtful that an explanation, even if described as clarificatory, could change the plain meaning of a statutory provision. The Court disagreed with the view taken by the Chhattisgarh High Court in Palak Khatuja (supra), stating that the substitution of reassessment provisions under the Finance Act, 2021, were not deferred by the notifications. Consequently, the notices impugned in the petitions were declared invalid and quashed. The appeals of the revenue were dismissed.

The High Court held that the explanations introduced by the CBDT notifications dated 31.03.2021 and 27.04.2021 were unconstitutional and invalid. The Court reasoned that the Relaxation Act, 2020, only empowered the Central Government to extend time limits for actions and compliances, not to issue explanations that altered the basis of statutory provisions. The CBDT, as a subordinate legislation, exceeded its jurisdiction by introducing an explanation that provided a clarification contrary to the plain meaning of the statutory provisions and the parent Act. The Court found it doubtful that an explanation, even if termed clarificatory, could change the fundamental statutory provisions. The Court disagreed with the view that the notifications deferred the substitution of reassessment provisions under the Finance Act, 2021. Consequently, the impugned notices under Section 148 were declared invalid and quashed. The Court noted that while a Single Judge of the Chhattisgarh High Court had taken a different view, it was unable to persuade itself to accept that analysis. All writ petitions were allowed, and appeals of the revenue were dismissed.