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, not to issue explanations that altered the basis of statutory provisions. The CBDT, by introducing these explanations, plainly exceeded its jurisdiction as a subordinate legislation, as it attempted to modify the application of the Income Tax Act beyond the scope of the delegated power. The Court found it doubtful that an explanation, even if termed clarificatory, could change the plain meaning of a statutory provision. The Court disagreed with the view taken by the Chhattisgarh High Court, stating that the notifications did not defer the substitution of reassessment provisions framed under the Finance Act, 2021, and the amendments' effective date remained 01.04.2021. 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 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 CBDT, in issuing these explanations, exceeded its jurisdiction as a subordinate legislation. The parent Act (Relaxation Act, 2020) only empowered the Central Government to extend time limits, not to introduce explanations that altered the fundamental provisions of the Income Tax Act. The Court found that the subordinate legislation could not travel beyond the powers vested in it by the parent Act. Furthermore, the Court held that an explanation, even if termed clarificatory, cannot change the plain meaning of a statutory provision or amend the parent Act. The Court disagreed with the view of the Chhattisgarh High Court, stating that the notifications did not defer the substitution of reassessment provisions framed under the Finance Act, 2021, and the amendments came into effect from 01.04.2021. Consequently, the notices impugned in the respective petitions 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 March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, were unconstitutional and invalid. The Court reasoned that the CBDT, as a subordinate legislation, had exceeded its jurisdiction by introducing explanations that went beyond the powers vested in the Government of India by the parent Act (Relaxation Act, 2020). The Court found that the power to extend time limits did not encompass the authority to issue explanations that could change the very 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 April 1, 2021. Consequently, the notices impugned in the 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. 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 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. Issuing an explanation that dictated the applicability of provisions of the Income Tax Act, particularly concerning the basis for issuing a Section 148 notice, was beyond the scope of this delegated power. The Court found that the subordinate legislation could not alter or interpret the parent Act in a manner that contradicted its plain meaning or amended its provisions. The Court disagreed with the view taken by the Chhattisgarh High Court, stating that the notifications did not defer the substitution of reassessment provisions framed under the Finance Act, 2021, and the amendments came into effect from 01.04.2021. 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 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 basis of statutory provisions. The CBDT, as a subordinate legislation, exceeded its jurisdiction by introducing these explanations, which attempted to amend the parent Act's provisions without legislative authority. The Court found it doubtful that an explanation, even if termed clarificatory, could change 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 on 01.04.2021. Consequently, the notices impugned in the respective petitions were declared invalid and bad in law. The Court quashed and set aside these notices. The 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 Relaxation Act, 2020, under Section 3(1), only empowered the Central Government to extend time limits for actions and compliances, not to introduce explanations that altered the basis of statutory provisions. The CBDT, by introducing an explanation that provided for the application of the old Section 148 provisions, plainly exceeded its jurisdiction as subordinate legislation. The Court found it doubtful that an explanation, even if termed clarificatory, could change the fundamental statutory provisions. The plain meaning of the statutory provision, once clear, cannot be amended by subordinate legislation through 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 amendments to the reassessment provisions under the Finance Act, 2021, came into effect on April 1, 2021, and could not have been deferred. Consequently, the notices impugned in the writ petitions 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, specifically Section 3(1), only empowered the Central Government to extend time limits for actions and compliances. The introduction of an explanation that dictated the application of pre-amendment provisions for issuing notices under Section 148, by way of clarification, plainly exceeded the delegated jurisdiction. The Court found 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 respectfully 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, as the amendments were effective from April 1, 2021. Consequently, the notices impugned in the petitions were declared invalid and quashed.

The High Court held that the explanations introduced by the CBDT through 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 action and compliance, not to issue explanations that altered the application of statutory provisions. The CBDT, as a subordinate legislation, exceeded its jurisdiction by introducing an explanation that effectively allowed the use of pre-amended Section 148 provisions beyond the stipulated deadlines. The Court found that such an explanation could not amend the parent Act's provisions and differed from the Chhattisgarh High Court's view in Palak Khatuja. Consequently, the notices impugned in the writ petitions were declared invalid and bad in law, and were quashed and set aside. The Court explicitly stated that the amendments to reassessment provisions framed under the Finance Act, 2021, came into effect on 01.04.2021 and were not deferred by the CBDT notifications.

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. Issuing an explanation that dictated the applicability of specific provisions of the Income Tax Act, particularly by providing a clarification that changed the basis of statutory provisions, was beyond the scope of the delegated power. The Court found that the subordinate legislation (CBDT notifications) had travelled beyond the powers vested in the government by the parent Act. It further held that a subordinate legislature cannot amend the provisions of a parent Act by introducing an explanation, even if described as clarificatory, when 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), stating that the substitution of reassessment provisions by the Finance Act, 2021, was not deferred by the notifications, and the amendments came into effect from 01.04.2021. Consequently, the impugned notices issued under Section 148 were declared invalid and quashed. All writ petitions were allowed, and appeals of the revenue were dismissed.

The High Court held that the explanations appended to 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 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 commencement of the Finance Act, 2021. The Court found that 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. 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 inserted 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. Issuing an explanation that provided a clarification on the applicability of Section 148, thereby allowing reassessment proceedings based on pre-amended provisions, plainly exceeded the delegated jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that subordinate legislation must operate within the confines of the powers granted by the parent Act and cannot amend the provisions of the parent Act through an explanation, especially when the plain meaning of the statutory provision is clear. The Court respectfully disagreed with the analysis of the Chhattisgarh High Court in Palak Khatuja, stating that the CBDT notifications did not defer the substitution of reassessment provisions framed under the Finance Act, 2021, and the amendments effective from 01.04.2021 remained in force. Consequently, the notices impugned in the respective 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 notifications dated 31.03.2021 and 27.04.2021 issued by the CBDT, by introducing an explanation that provided for the application of pre-amendment provisions of Section 148, exceeded the jurisdiction granted to it under Section 3(1) of the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020. The Court reasoned that the parent Act only authorized the extension of time limits, not the alteration or clarification of substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. The Court found that subordinate legislation cannot travel beyond the powers vested by the parent Act and that an explanation cannot amend the provisions of the parent Act, especially when the statutory meaning is clear. 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 CBDT notifications, and their effective date remained 01.04.2021. Consequently, the impugned notices issued under Section 148 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 actions and compliances. Issuing an explanation that touched upon the provisions of the Income Tax Act, particularly concerning the applicability of Section 148 and Section 149/151, was beyond the scope of this delegated power. The Court found that the CBDT, as a subordinate legislation, had plainly exceeded its jurisdiction by introducing an explanation that went beyond the powers vested in the government by the parent Act. The Court emphasized that a subordinate legislature cannot amend the provisions of a parent Act by introducing an explanation, even if described as clarificatory, 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), 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 April 1, 2021. 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 the revenue's appeals 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 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. Issuing an explanation that provided clarification on the applicability of Section 148 and Section 149/151 provisions, as they stood before the Finance Act, 2021, plainly exceeded the delegated jurisdiction. The Court found that subordinate legislation cannot travel beyond the powers vested by the parent Act, and an explanation cannot amend the provisions of the parent Act. The Court disagreed with the Chhattisgarh High Court's view in Palak Khatuja, stating that the substitution of reassessment provisions by the Finance Act, 2021, could not have been deferred by these notifications, and their effective date remained April 1, 2021. Consequently, the notices impugned in the petitions 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 31.03.2021 and 27.04.2021 were unconstitutional and invalid. The Court reasoned that under Section 3(1) of the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, the Central Government was empowered only to extend time limits for actions and compliances. Issuing an explanation that touched upon the provisions of the Income Tax Act, particularly by altering the basis for issuing notices under Section 148, exceeded the scope of this delegated power. 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 if its plain meaning is clear. The Court disagreed with the view taken by the Chhattisgarh High Court in Palak Khatuja (supra), which held that the notices were valid as the application of the pre-amendment 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 writ 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 Section 3(1), only empowered the Central Government to extend time limits for actions and compliances, not to issue explanations that altered or clarified substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. The CBDT, as a subordinate legislation, exceeded its jurisdiction by introducing an explanation that sought to apply the pre-amendment provisions of Section 148 and Section 149. The Court found that such an explanation could not amend the provisions of the parent Act, especially when the plain meaning of the statutory provisions was clear. The Court disagreed with the view taken by the Chhattisgarh High Court in Palak Khatuja (supra), which held that the notifications deferred the application of the new reassessment provisions. The High Court concluded that the notices impugned in the writ petitions were invalid and bad in law and were accordingly 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 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 clarified or altered the substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. The CBDT, as a subordinate legislation, exceeded its jurisdiction by introducing an explanation that provided for the application of pre-amended Section 148 provisions, effectively attempting to amend the parent Act. The Court found the plain meaning of the statutory provisions clear and stated that subordinate legislation cannot amend the parent Act by way of an explanation. The Court disagreed with the view taken by the Chhattisgarh High Court, holding that the notifications did not defer the substitution of reassessment provisions framed under the Finance Act, 2021, which came into effect from April 1, 2021. Consequently, the notices impugned in the writ petitions were quashed and set aside as invalid and bad in law.

The High Court held that the notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were invalid and bad in law. 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, not to issue explanations that altered the basis of statutory provisions. The CBDT's notifications dated March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, which introduced an explanation stating that pre-amendment provisions of Section 148, 149, and 151 would apply for issuing notices, were found to have exceeded the delegated power. The Court found these explanations to be unconstitutional and invalid as they attempted to amend the parent Act through subordinate legislation. 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 impugned notices 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 March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, were unconstitutional and invalid. The Court reasoned that the CBDT, as a subordinate legislation, exceeded its powers granted under Section 3(1) of the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020. The parent Act only empowered the Central Government to extend time limits, not to introduce explanations that altered the fundamental provisions of the Income Tax Act. The Court found that these explanations, in the guise of clarification, attempted to amend the parent Act, which is impermissible for subordinate legislation. The Court distinguished its view from a contrary decision by the Chhattisgarh High Court, 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. The Court explicitly stated that the appeals of the revenue were dismissed.

The High Court held that the notices impugned in the respective petitions are invalid and bad in law. The Court reasoned that the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, empowered the Central Government to extend time limits for actions and compliances, but not to issue explanations that altered the substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. The CBDT notifications dated 31.03.2021 and 27.04.2021, by introducing an explanation that the old Section 148 provisions would apply for issuing notices under Section 148 as per time limits in Sections 149 or 151, plainly exceeded their jurisdiction as subordinate legislation. Such subordinate legislation could not travel beyond the powers vested by the parent Act. The Court found it doubtful that an explanation, even if termed clarificatory, could change the basis of statutory provisions if their plain meaning was clear. The Court disagreed with the view of the Chhattisgarh High Court in Palak Khatuja (supra), holding that the substitution of reassessment provisions by the Finance Act, 2021, were not deferred by the CBDT notifications. Accordingly, the notices were quashed and set aside. 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 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 interpretation or application of statutory provisions. The CBDT, as a subordinate legislation, had exceeded its jurisdiction by introducing an explanation that effectively sought to amend the provisions of the Income Tax Act. The Court found that such an explanation could not change the plain meaning of the 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, which came into effect from April 1, 2021, could not have been deferred by the CBDT notifications. Consequently, the notices impugned in the writ petitions were declared invalid and quashed. The appeals of the revenue were dismissed.

The High Court held that the explanations inserted 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 fundamental 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 found it doubtful that an explanation, even in the guise of clarification, could change the basis of statutory provisions. The Court disagreed with the view that the notifications deferred the substitution of reassessment provisions framed under the Finance Act, 2021, and maintained that the amendments came into effect from 01.04.2021. 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 notifications dated 31.03.2021 and 27.04.2021 issued by the CBDT, by introducing an explanation that the provisions of Section 148 as they stood before the commencement of the Finance Act, 2021, would apply, plainly exceeded the jurisdiction vested in the CBDT as a subordinate legislation. 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 basis of statutory provisions. Introducing an explanation that effectively amended the parent Act's provisions, even if described as clarificatory, was beyond the scope of delegated power. The Court found these explanations to be unconstitutional and invalid. The High 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, could not have been deferred by these notifications, and the amendments came into effect from 01.04.2021. Consequently, the notices impugned in the petitions were declared invalid and quashed. All writ petitions were allowed, and appeals of the revenue were dismissed.

The High Court held that the explanation introduced by the CBDT notifications dated March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, was 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 power to extend time limits for actions and compliances. Issuing an explanation that clarified that pre-amendment provisions of Section 148 would apply, effectively altering the application of the Income Tax Act, went beyond the scope of the delegated power. The Court emphasized that subordinate legislation must operate within the confines of the parent Act and cannot amend statutory provisions under the guise of clarification. The Court found the explanation to be manifestly arbitrary and beyond the jurisdiction of the CBDT. Consequently, the notices issued under Section 148 based on this invalid explanation 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. The Court allowed all the writ petitions.

The High Court held that the notifications issued by the CBDT, dated 31.03.2021 and 27.04.2021, introducing an explanation that clarified the applicability of Section 148 notices based on pre-amended provisions, 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. Issuing an explanation that touched upon the provisions of the Income Tax Act, particularly by stating that pre-amended provisions would apply for Section 148 notices, plainly exceeded the jurisdiction of the CBDT as a subordinate legislation. The Court found that subordinate legislation cannot travel beyond the powers vested by the parent Act and that an explanation cannot be used to amend the provisions of the parent Act if its plain meaning is clear. The Court disagreed with the view taken by the Chhattisgarh High Court, stating that the substitution of reassessment provisions under the Finance Act, 2021, was not deferred by the notifications. Consequently, the notices impugned in the writ petitions were declared invalid and bad in law, and were quashed and set aside. All writ petitions were allowed.

The High Court held that the notices impugned in the respective petitions are invalid and bad in law, and therefore, quashed and set aside. The Court reasoned that the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, empowered the Central Government to extend time limits but did not grant the power to issue explanations that altered the substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. The CBDT's notifications dated March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, which introduced an explanation stating that the provisions as they stood before the commencement of the Finance Act, 2021, would apply for the purpose of issuing notices under Section 148, exceeded the delegated power. Such subordinate legislation could not travel beyond the powers vested by the parent Act and could not amend the provisions of the parent Act under the guise of clarification. The Court disagreed with the Chhattisgarh High Court's view that the notifications deferred the applicability of the new reassessment provisions. The Court found that the amendments introduced by the Finance Act, 2021, came into effect on April 1, 2021, and the notices issued under the old Section 148 were consequently invalid. The learned Single Judge had committed no error in quashing these notices. 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 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 effectively sought to apply pre-amendment provisions for Section 148 notices. The Court found that such an explanation could not amend the parent Act and was therefore beyond the scope of delegated power. 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 amendments brought by the Finance Act, 2021, came into effect on 01.04.2021, and the notifications could not defer this. Consequently, the notices impugned in the respective 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 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 action and compliance, 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 Finance Act, 2021, was an act that exceeded the jurisdiction of subordinate legislation. The Court found that such subordinate legislation could not travel beyond the powers vested by the parent Act and could not amend the provisions of the parent Act under the guise of clarification. The Court respectfully 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. Consequently, the notices impugned in the petitions were declared invalid and quashed. The High Court allowed all the writ petitions.

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 piece of delegated legislation, had to operate within the confines of the powers granted by the parent Act, which was the Relaxation Act, 2020. The parent Act authorized the extension of time limits but did not grant the power to issue explanations that altered the basis of statutory provisions or amended the parent Act. The Court found that the CBDT had plainly exceeded its jurisdiction by introducing an explanation that provided a clarification contrary to the plain meaning of the 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 CBDT notifications, and their effective date remained 01.04.2021. 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 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, specifically Section 3(1), only granted the power to extend time limits for actions and compliances. Issuing an explanation that touched upon the provisions of the Income Tax Act, particularly regarding the applicability of Section 148 and Section 149/151, was beyond the scope of the delegated power. The Court found that the CBDT, in issuing these explanations, plainly exceeded its jurisdiction as a subordinate legislation, as it attempted to alter the basis of statutory provisions without legislative authority. The ratio decidendi is that subordinate legislation cannot travel beyond the powers vested in it by the parent Act and cannot amend or alter the parent Act's provisions under the guise of a clarification. Consequently, the notices impugned in the writ petitions were quashed and set aside. The Court explicitly stated that the substitution of reassessment provisions under the Finance Act, 2021, coming into effect on April 1, 2021, was not deferred by these notifications. All writ petitions were allowed, and 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 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 provisions of Section 148 and Section 149, 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 that the notifications deferred the substitution of reassessment provisions by the Finance Act, 2021. Consequently, the notices impugned in the writ petitions were quashed and set aside as invalid and bad in law. 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, 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 travelling beyond the powers vested in it by the parent Act. 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, which held that the impugned notices were valid. The Court concluded that the substitution of reassessment provisions under the Finance Act, 2021, could not be deferred by these notifications, and the amendments came into effect from April 1, 2021. 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 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 applicability of 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's provisions regarding reassessment. The Court found that such subordinate legislation could not travel beyond the powers vested in it by the parent Act and that an explanation, even if termed clarificatory, could not override the plain meaning of statutory provisions. The Court disagreed with the Chhattisgarh High Court's view in Palak Khatuja, stating that the notifications did not defer the substitution of reassessment provisions under the Finance Act, 2021, whose effective date remained 01.04.2021. Consequently, the impugned notices 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, 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 or amended the parent Act. The Court found that the CBDT, in introducing these explanations, plainly exceeded its jurisdiction as a subordinate legislation. The Court disagreed with the Chhattisgarh High Court's view in Palak Khatuja, stating that the notifications did not defer the substitution of reassessment provisions framed under the Finance Act, 2021, and the amendments came into effect from 01.04.2021. Consequently, the notices impugned in the writ petitions were declared 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 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 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, in introducing the explanation that the pre-amendment Section 148 provisions would apply, 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 that an explanation cannot amend the provisions of the parent Act if its plain meaning is clear. The Court disagreed with the view that the notifications deferred the substitution of reassessment provisions under the Finance Act, 2021, stating that the amendments' effective date remained 01.04.2021. Consequently, the notices impugned in the petitions were declared invalid and quashed. The Court allowed all the writ petitions and dismissed the revenue's appeals.

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 granted under Section 3(1) of the Relaxation Act, 2020, was limited to extending time limits for actions and compliances, and did not include the authority to issue explanations that altered or clarified the substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. Introducing such an explanation, which effectively sought to apply the pre-amended Section 148 and Section 149, went beyond the scope of the delegated power and amounted to an illegal exercise of subordinate legislative power. The Court found that the subordinate legislation could not travel beyond the powers vested by the parent Act and that an explanation, even if termed clarificatory, could not amend the provisions of the parent Act if its plain meaning was clear. 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 under the Finance Act, 2021. Consequently, the notices impugned in the petitions were quashed and set aside as invalid and bad in law.

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 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. Issuing an explanation that provided a clarification on the applicability of Section 148 and Section 149/151, by stating that the pre-amended provisions would apply, plainly exceeded the CBDT's jurisdiction as a subordinate legislation. 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 view that the notifications deferred the substitution of reassessment provisions, stating that the amendments coming into effect on 01.04.2021 remained unchanged. Consequently, the notices impugned in the respective petitions 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 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 effectively changed the application of the Income Tax Act's reassessment provisions. The Court found that such subordinate legislation could not travel beyond the powers vested 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 that the notifications deferred the substitution of reassessment provisions under the Finance Act, 2021. Consequently, the notices impugned in the writ 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 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 changed 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 taken by the Chhattisgarh High Court in Palak Khatuja (supra), which held that the notices were valid. The High Court found that the substitution of reassessment provisions under the Finance Act, 2021, was not deferred by these notifications. Consequently, the notices impugned in the petitions were quashed and set aside. 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, specifically Section 3(1), only empowered the Central Government to extend time limits for compliances. Issuing an explanation that altered the basis of statutory provisions, by stating that pre-amendment Section 148 provisions would apply, plainly exceeded the delegated jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that subordinate legislation cannot amend the provisions of the parent Act, even under the guise of clarification. The ratio decidendi is that subordinate legislation must strictly adhere to the scope of powers granted by the parent Act and cannot introduce substantive changes or reinterpretations that go beyond such delegation. Consequently, the notices issued under Section 148 based on these invalid explanations were quashed and set aside. The 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 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 altered the basis of statutory provisions. Introducing an explanation that clarified that pre-amendment provisions would apply for Section 148 notices went beyond the delegated authority and amounted to an amendment of the parent Act by subordinate legislation, which is impermissible. The Court found that the subordinate legislation could not travel beyond the powers vested by the parent Act. The High Court disagreed with the view of the Chhattisgarh High Court, stating that the CBDT notifications did not defer the substitution of reassessment provisions framed under the Finance Act, 2021, and the amendments coming into effect on 01.04.2021 remained valid. Consequently, the notices impugned in the writ petitions 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 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, only empowered the Central Government to extend time limits for action and compliance, not to issue explanations that altered the basis of statutory provisions. 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' effective date remained 01.04.2021. Consequently, the notices impugned in the writ 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 basis of statutory provisions. The CBDT, as a subordinate legislation, exceeded its jurisdiction by introducing an explanation that provided for the application of pre-amended provisions of Section 148, effectively attempting to amend the parent Act. The Court found it doubtful that an explanation, even if termed clarificatory, could change the plain meaning of a statutory provision. 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. Consequently, the notices impugned in the writ petitions were quashed and set aside. The Court explicitly stated that 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 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 Court found that the CBDT, by introducing an explanation that the pre-amendment Section 148 provisions would apply, plainly exceeded its jurisdiction as a subordinate legislation. Such an explanation, in the guise of clarification, could not amend 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 under the Finance Act, 2021, which came into effect from April 1, 2021, could not be deferred by these notifications. Consequently, the notices impugned in the writ petitions 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 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 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 without proper delegation. The Court disagreed with the view that the notifications deferred the applicability of the reassessment provisions introduced by the Finance Act, 2021. Consequently, the notices impugned in the writ petitions were declared invalid and bad in law, and were quashed and set aside. The Court explicitly stated that the date of amendments coming into effect remained 01.04.2021.

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. Issuing an explanation that provided for the application of pre-amendment provisions for Section 148 notices went beyond the scope of this delegated power. The Court found that the subordinate legislation (CBDT notifications) had travelled beyond the powers vested in it by the parent Act and could not amend the provisions of the parent Act under the guise of clarification. The Court explicitly disagreed with the view of the Chhattisgarh High Court, 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 01.04.2021. 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 power granted to the Central Government under Section 3(1) of the Relaxation Act, 2020, was limited to extending time limits for actions and compliances. Issuing an explanation that altered the application of statutory provisions, particularly by seeking to apply pre-amendment provisions of Section 148, plainly exceeded the scope of this delegated power. The Court emphasized that subordinate legislation must operate within the confines of the parent Act and cannot amend its provisions, 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 as framed under the Finance Act, 2021, and that the amendments were effective from 01.04.2021. Consequently, the impugned notices issued under Section 148 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, specifically Section 3(1), only empowered the Central Government to extend time limits for actions and compliances. Issuing an explanation that clarified the applicability of Section 148 as it stood before the Finance Act, 2021, plainly exceeded this delegated jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that subordinate legislation must operate within the confines of the powers granted by the parent Act and cannot amend or alter the provisions of the parent Act, even under the guise of clarification. The Court disagreed with the view that the notifications deferred the application of the amended reassessment provisions, stating that the amendments coming into effect on April 1, 2021, remained unchanged. Consequently, the notices impugned in the writ petitions were declared 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 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 basis of statutory provisions. The CBDT, as a subordinate legislation, exceeded its jurisdiction by introducing an explanation that effectively sought to apply the old Section 148 provisions beyond their statutory repeal, 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 (supra), stating that the substitution of reassessment provisions under the Finance Act, 2021, could not have been deferred by these notifications, as the amendments were effective from April 1, 2021. Consequently, the notices impugned in the writ petitions 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 CBDT, as a subordinate legislative authority, had exceeded its jurisdiction by introducing an explanation that sought to clarify or alter the application of statutory provisions beyond the scope of the powers granted by the parent Act, specifically Section 3(1) of the Relaxation Act, 2020. The Court found that the parent Act only empowered the government to extend time limits, not to issue explanations touching upon the provisions of the Income Tax Act, especially in a manner that could be construed as amending the 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 notices impugned in the writ petitions were quashed and set aside. The Court allowed all the writ petitions and dismissed the appeals of the revenue.