Rajasthan High Court Judgments — 2022

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 delegatee of power, exceeded its jurisdiction by introducing these explanations, which effectively attempted 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 Chhattisgarh High Court's view, stating that the substitution of reassessment provisions under the Finance Act, 2021, was not deferred by the notifications, and the amendments came into effect on April 1, 2021. Consequently, the notices impugned in the writ petitions were found to be invalid and bad in law. All writ petitions were allowed, and 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 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, not to issue explanations that altered the statutory provisions of the Income Tax Act. The introduction of an explanation by the CBDT, stating that pre-amended Section 148 provisions would apply, was deemed to be an act beyond the scope of delegated legislation, as it attempted to amend the parent Act's provisions indirectly. 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 change the plain meaning of statutory provisions. The Court disagreed with the view of the Chhattisgarh High Court, holding that the substitution of reassessment provisions by the Finance Act, 2021, which came into effect from 01.04.2021, could not be deferred by these notifications. Consequently, the notices impugned in the writ petitions were quashed and set aside. The writ petitions were allowed, and the revenue's appeals were dismissed.

The High Court held that the explanation inserted 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, 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 contrary to the plain meaning of the statutory provisions and effectively amended the parent Act. The Court found that the substitution of reassessment provisions under the Finance Act, 2021, which came into effect from April 1, 2021, could not be deferred or altered by such notifications. Consequently, the notices impugned in the respective petitions were quashed and set aside as invalid and bad in law. The Court noted that similar views were taken by the Allahabad and Delhi High Courts, while disagreeing with a contrary view of the Chhattisgarh High Court.

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 CBDT, in issuing these explanations, 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 limited to extending time limits for action and compliance, not to issuing explanations that altered the interpretation or applicability of statutory provisions. The Court found it extremely doubtful that an explanation, even in the guise of clarification, could change the basis of statutory provisions if their plain meaning was clear. Therefore, the subordinate legislature could not amend the provisions of the parent Act. The Court disagreed with the Chhattisgarh High Court's view that the notifications deferred the substitution of reassessment provisions. The Court found the impugned notices under Section 148 to be invalid and bad in law. Accordingly, the notices were quashed and set aside. The 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. 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 compliances, but not to issue explanations that altered the basis of statutory provisions. The CBDT notifications dated March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, which introduced an explanation stating that the pre-amended Section 148 provisions would apply for issuing notices under Section 148, plainly exceeded the delegated jurisdiction. The Court found that a 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 clarification. The Court disagreed with the view taken by the Chhattisgarh High Court in Palak Khatuja (supra), finding that the substitution of reassessment provisions under the Finance Act, 2021, was not deferred. Accordingly, the notices 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 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 interpretation or application of statutory provisions like Section 148 and Section 149 of the Income Tax Act. The Court found that the CBDT, as a subordinate legislation, had exceeded its jurisdiction by introducing these explanations, which effectively sought to amend the parent Act's provisions. The Court distinguished this from merely extending time limits. It noted that while the Chhattisgarh High Court had taken a different view, it was unable to persuade itself to accept that analysis. Consequently, the Court declared the impugned notices issued under Section 148 as invalid and bad in law, quashing and setting them aside. The writ petitions were allowed, and the revenue's appeals were dismissed.

The High Court held that the notices impugned in the respective petitions were invalid and bad in law. The Court reasoned that the CBDT, by issuing notifications dated 31.03.2021 and 27.04.2021 and introducing an explanation that the pre-amendment provisions of Section 148 would apply for the purposes of issuance of notice under Section 148 as per the time limits specified in Section 149 or 151, plainly exceeded its jurisdiction as a subordinate legislation. The Court found that the Relaxation Act, 2020, only empowered the Central Government to extend time limits, not to issue explanations that altered the basis of statutory provisions. Subordinate legislation cannot travel beyond the powers vested by the parent Act. The Court disagreed with the view that the notifications deferred the applicability of the amended reassessment provisions under the Finance Act, 2021. The ratio decidendi is that subordinate legislation, such as CBDT notifications, cannot amend or override the provisions of a parent Act, even under the guise of clarification, and must remain within the scope of delegated powers. Consequently, the notices were quashed and set aside. The appeals of the revenue were dismissed.

The High Court held that the explanations introduced by the CBDT in its 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. Issuing an explanation that clarified the applicability of Section 148 provisions, by stating that the provisions as they stood on March 31, 2021, before the commencement of the Finance Act, 2021, would apply, plainly exceeded the delegated jurisdiction. The 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 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 CBDT notifications, and their effective date remained April 1, 2021. 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 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 the notifications were issued, only empowered the Central Government to extend time limits for actions and compliances. The introduction of an explanation that provided for the application of pre-amendment provisions of Section 148, by way of clarification, 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, nor could it amend the provisions of the parent Act under the guise of a 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, which came into effect from 01.04.2021, could not have been deferred by the notifications. 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 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, 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 and Section 149, by stating that the provisions as they stood on 31.03.2021 before the commencement of the Finance Act, 2021, 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 clarification. The High 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, were 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 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 legislation, had exceeded its powers granted under Section 3(1) of the Relaxation Act, 2020. The Act only empowered the government 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 plain meaning of statutory provisions or amend the parent Act. The Court respectfully disagreed with the view taken by the Chhattisgarh High Court, stating that the substitution of reassessment provisions under the Finance Act, 2021, which came into effect on 01.04.2021, could not have been deferred by the CBDT notifications. Consequently, the notices impugned in the petitions were declared invalid and quashed. All writ petitions were allowed.

The High Court held that the notices impugned in the respective petitions are invalid and bad in law, and consequently, they are quashed and set aside. 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. It did not grant the power to issue explanations that altered the interpretation or application of the Income Tax Act's provisions. The CBDT, by introducing an explanation in its notifications dated March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, which stated that for Section 148 notices, the provisions as they stood on March 31, 2021, would apply, plainly exceeded its jurisdiction as a subordinate legislation. 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 found itself in agreement with the views of the Allahabad and Delhi High Courts and some learned Single Judges, and respectfully disagreed with the contrary view taken by a Single Judge of the Chhattisgarh High Court. The ratio decidendi is that subordinate legislation must strictly adhere to the enabling provisions of the parent Act and cannot, through explanations or clarifications, alter the substantive provisions of the Act.

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. Issuing an explanation that provided a clarification on the applicability of Section 148 provisions, effectively allowing the use of old provisions beyond the intended transition, 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 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 under the Finance Act, 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 in its 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 compliances. Issuing an explanation that touched upon the provisions of the Income Tax Act, particularly by providing a clarification that changed the basis of statutory provisions, 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. Furthermore, the Court stated that if the plain meaning of a statutory provision is clear, a subordinate legislature cannot amend it by introducing an explanation, even if described as clarificatory. The Court disagreed with the analysis of the Chhattisgarh High Court, 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 respective 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 Relaxation Act, 2020, under Section 3(1), only granted power to the Central Government to extend time limits by issuing notifications. Issuing an explanation that touched upon the provisions of the Income Tax Act, particularly by providing a clarification that changed the applicability 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 it by the parent Act. It further observed that a subordinate legislature cannot amend the provisions of the 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 of the Chhattisgarh High Court in Palak Khatuja, stating that the substitution of reassessment provisions by the Finance Act, 2021, which came into effect from 01.04.2021, could not have been deferred by the CBDT 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 notifications dated 31.03.2021 and 27.04.2021 issued by the CBDT, by introducing an explanation that provided for the application of Section 148 as it stood before the commencement of the Finance Act, 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 empowered the Central Government to extend time limits for compliances. The introduction of an explanation that altered the basis of statutory provisions, particularly by seeking to apply pre-amendment provisions of Section 148, exceeded the scope of the delegated power. The Court found that subordinate legislation cannot travel beyond the powers vested in it by the parent Act and cannot amend the provisions of the parent Act under the guise of a 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. Consequently, the notices impugned in the 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 notices impugned in the respective petitions are invalid and bad in law, and therefore, they are quashed and set aside. The Court reasoned that the CBDT, in issuing the notifications dated March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, and introducing an explanation that provided for the applicability of Section 148, Section 149, and Section 151 as they stood before March 31, 2021, plainly exceeded its jurisdiction as a subordinate legislation. The Court emphasized that subordinate legislation cannot travel beyond the powers vested in the government by the parent Act. Furthermore, it was held that an explanation, even if termed clarificatory, cannot change the very basis of statutory provisions or amend 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 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, all the writ petitions were allowed, and 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, and therefore, quashed and set aside. The Court reasoned that the CBDT notifications dated March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, which introduced an explanation providing that for the purposes of issuance of notice under Section 148, the provisions as they stood on March 31, 2021, before the commencement of the Finance Act, 2021, shall apply, plainly exceeded the jurisdiction of subordinate legislation. The Court found that the parent Act (Relaxation Act, 2020) only empowered the Central Government to extend time limits, not to issue explanations that altered the basis of statutory provisions. The subordinate legislation could not travel beyond the powers vested in it by the parent Act. 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 came into effect on April 1, 2021. The Court found that the learned Single Judge committed no error in quashing these notices. All writ petitions were allowed, and appeals of the revenue were dismissed.

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 CBDT, as a subordinate legislative authority, had exceeded its jurisdiction by introducing an explanation that effectively altered the substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The parent Act, the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, only granted the power to extend time limits, not to issue clarifications that changed the statutory provisions. 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 that the notifications deferred the substitution of reassessment provisions under 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 noted that similar views were taken by the Allahabad and Delhi High Courts, and disagreed with the Chhattisgarh High Court's contrary view.

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 which the notifications were issued, only empowered the Central Government to extend time limits for actions and compliances. Issuing an explanation that altered the basis of reassessment proceedings by providing for the application of pre-amended Section 148 provisions exceeded the delegated powers. The Court found that subordinate legislation cannot travel beyond the powers vested in it by the parent Act and cannot amend the provisions of the parent Act under the guise of clarification. The Court disagreed with the Chhattisgarh High Court's view, 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 April 1, 2021. Consequently, the notices impugned in the petitions were quashed and set aside. The Court expressly 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 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, in introducing an explanation that effectively allowed the use of pre-amended Section 148 provisions, plainly exceeded its jurisdiction as a subordinate legislation. The Court found it doubtful that an explanation, even in the guise of clarification, could change the fundamental basis of statutory provisions. The Court disagreed with the view of the Chhattisgarh High Court that the notifications deferred the substitution of reassessment provisions. Consequently, the notices impugned in the writ petitions were declared invalid and bad in law, and were quashed and set aside. 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 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 provided a clarification on the applicability of Section 148 provisions, by stating that the pre-amendment provisions would apply, plainly exceeded the jurisdiction granted to the CBDT as a subordinate legislation. 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 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, which came into effect from April 1, 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 Central Government the power to extend time limits for actions and compliances. Issuing an explanation that altered the interpretation or application of statutory provisions, such as those related to Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, went beyond the scope of this delegated power. The Court emphasized that subordinate legislation cannot travel beyond the powers vested in it by the parent Act and that an explanation cannot amend the provisions of the parent Act if their plain meaning is clear. The Court disagreed with the view taken by the Chhattisgarh High Court in Palak Khatuja (supra), finding that the substitution of reassessment provisions by the Finance Act, 2021, was not deferred by the notifications. Consequently, the notices impugned in the writ petitions were declared invalid and quashed. All writ petitions were allowed.

The High Court held that the notifications dated 31.03.2021 and 27.04.2021, by introducing an explanation that provided for the application of Section 148, Section 149, and Section 151 as they stood before the commencement of the Finance Act, 2021, plainly exceeded the jurisdiction of the CBDT as a subordinate legislation. The Court reasoned that the power granted 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. The Court found that such an explanation, in the guise of clarification, could not amend the provisions of the parent Act. Therefore, these explanations were declared unconstitutional and invalid. The Court disagreed with the view taken by the Chhattisgarh High Court in Palak Khatuja (supra), which held that the impugned notices were valid because the notifications deferred the application of the amended Section 148. The High Court concluded that the notices impugned in the respective 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, specifically 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 altering the basis of statutory provisions, exceeded the scope of this delegated power. The Court found that the subordinate legislation could not travel beyond the powers vested in it by the parent Act. It further 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 of the Chhattisgarh High Court in Palak Khatuja (supra) that the notifications deferred the substitution of reassessment provisions. Consequently, the notices impugned in the writ 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 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. Issuing an explanation that provided a clarification on the applicability of Section 148, as it stood before the Finance Act, 2021, plainly exceeded the jurisdiction of the CBDT as a subordinate legislation. The subordinate legislation could not travel beyond the powers vested by the parent Act. The Court found it extremely doubtful that an explanation, even in the guise of clarification, could change the basis of statutory provisions. If the plain meaning of the statutory provision is clear, a subordinate legislature cannot amend the parent Act by adopting a different position in an explanation. The Court disagreed with the view of the Chhattisgarh High Court that the notifications deferred the substitution of reassessment provisions. Therefore, 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 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 basis of statutory provisions. The CBDT, as a subordinate legislation, exceeded its jurisdiction by introducing an explanation that effectively 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 by the parent Act and that an explanation cannot change the plain meaning of a statutory provision. The Court disagreed with the view taken by the Chhattisgarh High Court in Palak Khatuja (supra), finding that the substitution of reassessment provisions by the Finance Act, 2021, effective April 1, 2021, could not be 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 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 dictated the applicability of statutory provisions, particularly concerning the issuance of notices under Section 148, went beyond the scope of this delegated power. The Court found that the subordinate legislation (the notifications) had exceeded its jurisdiction by attempting to alter the basis of statutory provisions, which is impermissible. The Court respectfully disagreed with the view taken by 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 bad in law, and were quashed and set aside. The Court did not expressly leave any 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 CBDT, in issuing these explanations, plainly exceeded its jurisdiction as a subordinate legislation. The Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, under which the notifications were issued, only empowered the Central Government to extend time limits, not to issue explanations that altered the basis of statutory provisions. 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 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 CBDT notifications, and their effective date remained April 1, 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 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, under Section 3(1), only empowered the Central Government to extend time limits for actions and compliances, not to issue explanations that altered 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 their intended period. The Court found that such subordinate legislation could not travel beyond the powers vested by the parent Act and that an explanation cannot amend the provisions of a parent Act if its plain meaning 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 01.04.2021. Consequently, the impugned notices under Section 148 were quashed and set aside.

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, in issuing these notifications, exceeded its delegated powers under Section 3(1) of the Relaxation Act, 2020. The parent Act only authorized the extension of time limits, not the introduction of explanations that altered the basis of statutory provisions or amended 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 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 as it existed before the amendment was deferred. The High Court concluded 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 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 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 regarding the application of Section 148 and Section 149/151, went beyond the delegated powers. The Court found that the subordinate legislation could not travel beyond the powers vested in it by the parent Act. It further held that an explanation, even if termed as a clarification, 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) and found the impugned notices to be invalid and bad in law. Consequently, the notices were quashed and set aside, and all writ petitions were allowed. 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 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 authority to issue explanations that effectively altered the basis of statutory provisions or amended the parent Act. The Court found that the CBDT, as a subordinate legislation, had plainly exceeded its jurisdiction by introducing these explanations, which sought to change the very meaning of statutory provisions. 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. 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 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, under which the notifications were issued, only granted the power to extend time limits for compliances, not to introduce 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 subordinate legislation must remain within the confines of the powers vested by the parent Act. The Court disagreed with the Chhattisgarh High Court's view, 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 the CBDT notifications. 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. All writ petitions were allowed, and 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, and are therefore quashed and set aside. 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, in issuing notifications dated 31.03.2021 and 27.04.2021, introduced an explanation that provided for the application of pre-amendment provisions for Section 148 notices. The Court found that this explanation plainly exceeded the CBDT's jurisdiction as a subordinate legislation, as it attempted to amend the parent Act's provisions by way of clarification. The Court distinguished this from the view taken by the Chhattisgarh High Court, finding that the substitution of reassessment provisions under the Finance Act, 2021, could not have been deferred by the CBDT notifications. The ratio decidendi is that subordinate legislation cannot travel beyond the powers vested by the parent Act and cannot amend statutory provisions under the guise of clarification. 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 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 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 concerning reassessment notices. The Court found it doubtful that an explanation, even if termed clarificatory, could change the plain meaning of a statutory provision. The High Court disagreed with the Chhattisgarh High Court's view, stating that the notifications did not defer the substitution of reassessment provisions under the Finance Act, 2021, and the amendments remained effective from April 1, 2021. Consequently, the notices impugned in the writ petitions were quashed and set aside. 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, 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 an explanation that effectively sought to change the applicability of Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as it stood before the Finance Act, 2021. The Court found that such an explanation could not amend the parent Act and that the plain meaning of the statutory provisions should prevail. The Court disagreed with the view of the Chhattisgarh High Court, stating that the notifications did not defer the substitution of reassessment provisions by the Finance Act, 2021, and the amendments remained effective from 01.04.2021. Consequently, the notices impugned in the writ petitions were quashed and set aside. All writ petitions were allowed, and 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, which introduced an explanation stating that the provisions of Section 148 as they stood before the commencement of the Finance Act, 2021, would apply, were unconstitutional and invalid. The Court reasoned that Section 3(1) of 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 clarified or altered the substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act, by reviving the old Section 148, exceeded the scope of this delegated power. The Court found that subordinate legislation cannot travel beyond the powers vested in it by the parent Act and cannot 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 application of the old Section 148 was deferred. The High Court concluded that the amendments to the reassessment provisions under the Finance Act, 2021, came into effect on 01.04.2021, and the notices impugned were therefore invalid. All the writ petitions were allowed, and the notices were quashed and set aside.

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 power to extend time limits by issuing notifications. Issuing an explanation that provided a clarification touching upon the provisions of the Income Tax Act, specifically regarding the applicability of Section 148 and Section 149/151, plainly exceeded the jurisdiction of the CBDT as a subordinate legislation. The subordinate legislation could not travel beyond the powers vested by the parent Act. The Court further held that an explanation, even if described as 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 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 amendments coming into effect on April 1, 2021, remained valid. Consequently, the notices impugned in the writ petitions were found to be invalid and bad in law and were quashed and set aside.

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 under Section 3(1) of the Relaxation Act, 2020, the Central Government was authorized only 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, went beyond this delegated power. The Court found that the subordinate legislation (CBDT notifications) had exceeded its jurisdiction by attempting to alter the basis of statutory provisions, which it could not do. 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 01.04.2021, could not have been deferred by these notifications. 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.

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 reasoned that the CBDT, by issuing notifications dated March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, which introduced an explanation stating that for the purposes of Section 148 notices, the provisions as they stood on March 31, 2021, would apply, plainly exceeded its jurisdiction as a subordinate legislation. The Court found that the parent Act, the Relaxation Act, 2020, only empowered the Central Government to extend time limits, not to issue explanations that altered the basis of statutory provisions. Such 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 clarification. The Court disagreed with the view that the notifications deferred the substitution of reassessment provisions under the Finance Act, 2021, holding that the date of these amendments coming into effect remained April 1, 2021. Therefore, the notices issued based on the old provisions were invalid.

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 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 substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. The Court found that the CBDT, by introducing the explanation, plainly exceeded its jurisdiction as a subordinate legislation, as it travelled beyond the powers granted by the parent Act. The Court also noted that a subordinate legislation cannot amend the provisions of a parent Act, even under the guise of a clarification, if the plain meaning of the statutory provision is clear. 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 coming into effect on April 1, 2021, remained valid. Consequently, the notices impugned in the writ petitions were declared invalid and quashed. 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 power granted under Section 3(1) of the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, was limited to extending time limits for actions and compliances, and did not include the power to issue explanations that altered or clarified the substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court found that the CBDT, by introducing an explanation that dictated the applicability of Section 148 notices based on the provisions as they stood before the Finance Act, 2021, had plainly exceeded its jurisdiction as a subordinate legislation. Such subordinate legislation cannot 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 ratio decidendi is that subordinate legislation must strictly adhere to the scope of powers delegated by the parent legislation and cannot alter statutory provisions under the guise of clarification or extension. 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.

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, 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 pre-amendment provisions of Section 148, thereby attempting to amend the parent Act. The Court disagreed with the view taken by the Chhattisgarh High Court in Palak Khatuja (supra), finding 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 April 1, 2021. Consequently, the notices impugned in the writ petitions were declared invalid and quashed. The Court found no error in the learned Single Judge's decision to quash these notices. 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 basis of statutory provisions. The CBDT, as a subordinate legislation, exceeded its delegated powers by introducing an explanation that sought to apply pre-amended provisions of Section 148 and 149. The Court found that such an explanation could not amend 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), 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 quashed and set aside. The ratio is that subordinate legislation cannot introduce explanations that alter or amend the parent Act's provisions beyond the scope of the delegated power.

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 legislative authority, had exceeded its jurisdiction by introducing an explanation that travelled beyond the powers vested in the Government of India by the parent Act (Relaxation Act, 2020). The Court found that the subordinate legislation could not amend the provisions of the parent Act, especially when the plain meaning of the statutory provision was clear. 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 Court noted that two Division Benches of the Allahabad and Delhi High Courts had taken a similar view, while a Single Judge of the Chhattisgarh High Court had taken a different view.

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. Issuing an explanation that provided for the application of pre-amended provisions of Section 148, by way of clarification, plainly exceeded the jurisdiction vested in the CBDT as a subordinate legislation. The Court found that subordinate legislation cannot travel beyond the powers granted 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 taken by the Chhattisgarh High Court in Palak Khatuja (supra), which held that the notices were valid because the notifications deferred the application of Section 148A. The High Court concluded that the amendments to the 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 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, under Section 3(1), only empowered the Central Government to extend time limits by issuing notifications. Introducing an explanation that provided a clarification on the applicability of Section 148, effectively altering the basis of statutory provisions, plainly exceeded the CBDT's jurisdiction as a subordinate legislation. The subordinate legislation could not travel beyond the powers vested by the parent Act. The Court found it doubtful that an explanation, even in the guise of clarification, 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, and their effective date remained 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.

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 compliances, and did not include the authority to issue explanations that altered the substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. The Court found that the CBDT, in introducing these explanations, plainly exceeded its jurisdiction as a subordinate legislation, as it attempted to amend the provisions of the parent Act through a clarificatory note. The Court distinguished this from the view taken by the Chhattisgarh High Court in Palak Khatuja (supra), finding that the substitution of reassessment provisions under the Finance Act, 2021, were not deferred by the notifications. Consequently, the notices impugned in the respective petitions were declared invalid and bad in law and were quashed and set aside. All the 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, introducing an explanation to clarify the applicability of reassessment provisions as they stood before the Finance Act, 2021, were unconstitutional and invalid. The Court reasoned that the CBDT, as a subordinate legislation, had exceeded its jurisdiction by introducing an explanation that went beyond the powers vested in the Central Government by the parent Act (Relaxation Act, 2020). The Court found that the parent Act only empowered the government to extend time limits, not to issue explanations that could alter the basis of statutory provisions. The Court disagreed with the view that these notifications deferred the substitution of reassessment provisions under the Finance Act, 2021, stating that the amendments were effective from April 1, 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.