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 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 the Income Tax Act's provisions. The CBDT, as a subordinate legislation, exceeded its jurisdiction by introducing an explanation that effectively sought to apply the pre-amended Section 148 provisions beyond their statutory period. 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 taken by the Chhattisgarh High Court in Palak Khatuja, stating that the substitution of reassessment provisions under the Finance Act, 2021, could not be deferred by these notifications. 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 and dismissed the appeals of the revenue.

The High Court held that the explanations introduced by the CBDT notifications dated 31.03.2021 and 27.04.2021 were unconstitutional and invalid. The Court reasoned that the power vested in the Central Government under Section 3(1) of the Relaxation Act, 2020, was limited to extending time limits for actions and compliances. Issuing an explanation that provided a clarification on the applicability of Section 148 provisions, effectively altering the basis of statutory provisions, 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 through an explanation. The Court disagreed with the view taken by the Chhattisgarh High Court in Palak Khatuja (supra), stating that the substitution of reassessment provisions under the Finance Act, 2021, 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. All writ petitions were allowed, and the revenue's appeals were dismissed.

The High Court held that the explanations introduced by the CBDT notifications dated March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, were unconstitutional and invalid. The Court reasoned that the Relaxation Act, 2020, under Section 3(1), only empowered the Central Government to extend time limits for actions and compliances, not to issue explanations that altered the basis of statutory provisions. The CBDT, as a subordinate legislation, exceeded its jurisdiction by introducing an explanation that sought to clarify that the old Section 148 provisions would apply, thereby attempting to amend the parent Act or the Income Tax Act itself. 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. The Court disagreed with the Chhattisgarh High Court's view, stating that the substitution of reassessment provisions under the Finance Act, 2021, were not deferred by the notifications, and their effective date remained April 1, 2021. Consequently, the notices impugned in the respective petitions were quashed and set aside as invalid and bad in law. The appeals of the revenue were dismissed.

The High Court held that the explanations introduced by the CBDT notifications dated 31.03.2021 and 27.04.2021 were unconstitutional and invalid. The Court reasoned that the Relaxation Act, 2020, only empowered the Central Government to extend time limits for actions and compliances, not to issue explanations that altered the basis of statutory provisions or applied them retrospectively. The CBDT, as a subordinate legislation, exceeded its jurisdiction by introducing these explanations, which sought to clarify provisions in a manner that went beyond the parent Act's delegation. 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 under the Finance Act, 2021. Consequently, the notices impugned in the petitions were declared invalid and quashed. The Court noted that two Division Benches of the Allahabad and Delhi High Courts, as well as two learned Single Judges of the Calcutta and Rajasthan High Courts, had taken a similar view, while acknowledging a different view from the Chhattisgarh High Court.

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 application of statutory provisions. The CBDT, as a subordinate legislation, had plainly exceeded its jurisdiction by introducing these explanations, which attempted to change the basis of statutory provisions without legislative authority. 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 because the application of Section 148 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 the amendments came into effect on 01.04.2021. 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 March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, were unconstitutional and invalid. The Court reasoned that the power vested in the Central Government under Section 3(1) of the Relaxation Act, 2020, was limited to extending time limits for action and compliance, and did not include the power to issue explanations that altered the basis of statutory provisions. The Court found that the CBDT, by introducing these explanations, had plainly exceeded its jurisdiction as a subordinate legislation, as the subordinate legislation could not travel beyond the powers vested by the parent Act. Furthermore, the Court held 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, stating that the substitution of reassessment provisions under the Finance Act, 2021, were not deferred by these notifications. Consequently, the notices impugned in the writ petitions were quashed and set aside as invalid and bad in law. All writ petitions were allowed, and the revenue's appeals were dismissed.

The High Court held that the notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were invalid and bad in law. The Court found 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, by introducing an explanation that provided for the application of pre-amended Section 148 and Section 149, exceeded the delegated powers and acted as a piece of subordinate legislation that travelled beyond the parent Act. The Court found these explanations to be unconstitutional and invalid. 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, could not have been deferred by the CBDT notifications. The date of amendments coming into effect remained April 1, 2021. Consequently, all the writ petitions were allowed, and the impugned notices were quashed and set aside. The appeals of the revenue were dismissed.

The High Court held that the explanations introduced by the CBDT notifications dated March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, were unconstitutional and invalid. The Court reasoned that the 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 introducing these explanations, exceeded its jurisdiction as a subordinate legislation, as it attempted to amend the parent Act's provisions indirectly. The Court found that subordinate legislation cannot travel beyond the powers vested by the parent Act and cannot change the plain meaning of statutory provisions 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 Section 148 was deferred. The High Court concluded that the substitution of reassessment provisions under the Finance Act, 2021, was not deferred and the amendments came into effect from April 1, 2021. Consequently, the notices impugned in the 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 under Section 3(1) of the Relaxation Act, 2020, the Central Government was empowered only to extend time limits for actions and compliances. Issuing an explanation that dictated the applicability of Section 148 provisions, by way of clarification, 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 could change the basis of statutory provisions, especially when the plain meaning of the statutory provision is clear. The Court disagreed with the view that these 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 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 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 affected the application of provisions of the Income Tax Act, particularly concerning the issuance of 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, even if termed clarificatory, could not amend the provisions of the parent Act if their plain meaning was clear. The Court disagreed with the view taken by the Chhattisgarh High Court in Palak Khatuja (supra), which had held the notices to be valid. The ratio decidendi is that subordinate legislation cannot alter or interpret statutory provisions beyond the scope of the enabling Act, and any such attempt renders the subordinate legislation invalid. 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 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. Introducing an explanation that altered the basis of statutory provisions, particularly concerning the applicability of Section 148 before the Finance Act, 2021, went beyond the scope of this delegated power. The Court found that the subordinate legislation had exceeded its jurisdiction by attempting to amend the parent Act through an explanation, even if described as 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 April 1, 2021, remained unchanged. Consequently, the notices impugned in the writ petitions were declared invalid and quashed. The Court noted that while the Chhattisgarh High Court had taken a different view, it was unable to persuade itself to accept that analysis.

The 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 effectively sought to amend the Income Tax Act. The Court found it doubtful that an explanation, even if described as clarificatory, could change the plain meaning of a statutory provision. The Court respectfully disagreed with the Chhattisgarh High Court's view in Palak Khatuja, 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. All writ petitions were allowed, and the appeals of the revenue were dismissed.

The High Court held that the explanations introduced by the CBDT notifications dated March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, were unconstitutional and invalid. The Court reasoned that 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 a clarification contrary to the plain meaning and intent of the statutory provisions introduced by the Finance Act, 2021. The Court found that such an explanation could not amend the provisions of the parent Act. The Court disagreed with the view taken by the Chhattisgarh High Court in Palak Khatuja (supra), which held that the notices were valid. The High Court concluded that the notices impugned in the respective petitions were invalid and bad in law and were therefore quashed and set aside. All writ petitions were allowed, and appeals of the revenue were dismissed.

The High Court held that the explanations introduced by the CBDT notifications dated 31.03.2021 and 27.04.2021 were unconstitutional and invalid. The Court reasoned that the 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 altered the basis of statutory provisions, by stating that pre-amendment provisions of Section 148 would apply, plainly exceeded the delegated authority. The Court found that subordinate legislation cannot amend the provisions of a parent Act, even under the guise of clarification. The High Court disagreed with the view taken by the Chhattisgarh High Court, stating that the notifications did not defer the substitution of reassessment provisions under the Finance Act, 2021, and that 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. The Court explicitly stated that the reassessment notices were invalid and bad in law.

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 statutory provisions. The CBDT, as a subordinate legislation, exceeded its jurisdiction by introducing an explanation that provided for the application of pre-amended Section 148 provisions, thereby attempting 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 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, which came into effect from 01.04.2021, could not be deferred by these notifications. Consequently, the notices impugned in the respective petitions were declared invalid and quashed. The Court expressly left no issue undecided.

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 which these notifications were issued, only granted the Central Government the power to extend time limits for actions and compliances. Issuing an explanation that provided a clarification on the application 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 delegated jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that subordinate legislation cannot travel beyond the powers vested by the parent Act and cannot amend the provisions of the parent Act under the guise of clarification. The Court found the explanations to be manifestly arbitrary and inconsistent with the parent statute. 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 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 ratio decidendi is that subordinate legislation, including CBDT notifications, must strictly adhere to the scope of powers granted by the parent Act and cannot alter statutory provisions through 'clarifications' if such power is not explicitly delegated.

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. The introduction of an explanation by the CBDT, which provided that for the purposes of Section 148 notices, the provisions as they stood before the commencement of the Finance Act, 2021, would apply, plainly exceeded the delegated jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that subordinate legislation cannot travel beyond the powers vested by the parent Act and cannot amend the provisions of the parent Act under the guise of a clarification. The Court disagreed with the 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 declared invalid and quashed. The Court allowed all the writ petitions and dismissed the appeals of the revenue.

The High Court held that the explanations introduced by the CBDT notifications dated March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, were unconstitutional and invalid. The Court reasoned that the Relaxation Act, 2020, under Section 3(1), only empowered the Central Government to extend time limits for actions and compliances, not to issue explanations that altered the basis of statutory provisions. The CBDT, as a subordinate legislation, exceeded its jurisdiction by introducing an explanation that provided for the application of pre-amendment provisions of Section 148 and Section 149, 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 statutory provisions. The Court disagreed with the view taken by the Chhattisgarh High Court in Palak Khatuja (supra), which held that the notices were valid because the notifications deferred the application of the new reassessment provisions. The High Court concluded that the substitution of reassessment provisions by the Finance Act, 2021, came into effect on April 1, 2021, and could not be deferred by the CBDT notifications. Consequently, the notices impugned in the 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, 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, in the guise of clarification, sought to amend the parent Act. The Court found it doubtful that an explanation 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 April 1, 2021. Consequently, the notices impugned in the writ petitions were quashed and set aside. The appeals of the revenue were dismissed.

The High Court held that the explanations introduced by the CBDT notifications dated 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 altered the basis of statutory provisions or amended the parent Act. The Court found that the CBDT, by introducing these explanations, plainly exceeded its jurisdiction as a subordinate legislation. The Court disagreed with the view of the Chhattisgarh High Court, stating that the substitution of reassessment provisions under the Finance Act, 2021, were not deferred by the notifications, and their 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. 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 under Section 3(1) of the Relaxation Act, 2020, the Central Government was empowered only to extend time limits for actions and compliances. Issuing an explanation that touched upon the provisions of the Income Tax Act, particularly by providing a clarification that effectively altered the basis of statutory provisions concerning reassessment notices, exceeded the delegated powers. 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, cannot amend the provisions of the parent Act if its plain meaning is clear. 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. Consequently, the notices impugned in the writ petitions were declared invalid and quashed. The Court noted that two Division Benches of the Allahabad and Delhi High Courts had taken a similar view, and learned Single Judges of the Calcutta and Rajasthan High Courts had followed this trend.

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 delegated under Section 3(1) of the Relaxation Act, 2020, was limited to extending time limits for actions and compliances, and did not extend to issuing explanations that altered the statutory provisions of the Income Tax Act. The Court found that the CBDT, as a subordinate legislation, had plainly exceeded its jurisdiction by introducing these explanations, which effectively sought to amend the parent Act. The Court disagreed with the Chhattisgarh High Court's view 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 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 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 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 application of statutory provisions. The CBDT, as a subordinate legislation, had plainly exceeded its jurisdiction by introducing an explanation that provided for the application of the pre-amended Section 148 provisions. The Court found that a subordinate legislation cannot travel beyond the powers vested by the parent Act, nor can it amend the parent Act's provisions 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 substitution of reassessment provisions by the Finance Act, 2021, which came into effect from April 1, 2021, could not be deferred by the impugned notifications. Consequently, the notices impugned in the writ petitions were quashed and set aside as invalid and bad in law. All writ petitions were allowed, and the appeals of the revenue were dismissed.

The High Court held that the explanations introduced by the CBDT 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 compliances. The CBDT, as a subordinate legislation, exceeded its jurisdiction by introducing explanations that sought to clarify or alter the application of Section 148 and Section 149 of the Income Tax Act. The Court found that such explanations could not amend the parent Act's provisions, especially when the plain meaning of the statutory provisions was 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 came into effect from 01.04.2021. Consequently, the notices impugned in the writ petitions were declared invalid and quashed. The Court noted that this view was consistent with decisions of the Allahabad and Delhi High Courts, while disagreeing with a contrary view from the Chhattisgarh High Court.

The High Court held that the explanations introduced by the CBDT notifications dated March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, were unconstitutional and invalid. The Court reasoned that the Relaxation Act, 2020, under Section 3(1), only empowered the Central Government to extend time limits for 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, in the guise of clarification, effectively sought to amend the parent Act's provisions. The Court found it doubtful that an explanation could 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, which came into effect from April 1, 2021, could not have been deferred by these notifications. Consequently, the notices impugned in the writ petitions were declared invalid and quashed. The Court allowed all the writ petitions.

The High Court held that the explanations introduced by the CBDT notifications dated March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, were unconstitutional and invalid. The Court reasoned that the Relaxation Act, 2020, under Section 3(1), only empowered the Central Government to extend time limits for compliances, not to introduce explanations that altered the basis of statutory provisions. The CBDT, as a subordinate legislation, exceeded its jurisdiction by issuing explanations that provided a clarification contrary to the plain meaning of the statutory provisions and the parent Act's delegation. The Court found it doubtful that an explanation, even if termed clarificatory, could amend the provisions of the parent Act. The Court disagreed with the view of 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, and their effective date remained April 1, 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 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 application of Section 148, effectively altering the basis of statutory provisions, exceeded the scope of this delegated power. The subordinate legislation could not travel beyond the powers granted by the parent Act. 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 and its interpretation being clear, the subordinate legislature could not amend the parent Act through an explanation. The Court disagreed with the view taken by the Chhattisgarh High Court, stating that the substitution of reassessment provisions under the Finance Act, 2021, were not deferred by the notifications, and their effective date remained 01.04.2021. Consequently, the notices impugned in the petitions were declared invalid and quashed. All writ petitions were allowed, and 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, as a subordinate legislation, had exceeded its powers granted 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 clarified or altered the application of statutory provisions, particularly concerning the reassessment provisions under the Income Tax Act. The Court found it doubtful that an explanation, even if termed clarificatory, could change the fundamental basis of statutory provisions. If the plain meaning of a statutory provision is clear, a subordinate legislature cannot amend it by adopting a different position in an explanation. The Court disagreed with the view that the notifications deferred the substitution of reassessment provisions under the Finance Act, 2021. Consequently, the notices impugned in the respective petitions were declared invalid and bad in law, and were quashed and set aside. The appeals of the revenue were dismissed.

The High Court held that the explanations 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 actions and compliances, not to issue explanations that altered the basis of statutory provisions. The CBDT, as a subordinate legislation, exceeded its jurisdiction by introducing an explanation that provided a clarification contrary to the plain meaning of the statutory provisions and effectively amended the parent Act. The Court disagreed with the view taken by the Chhattisgarh High Court in Palak Khatuja (supra), stating that the substitution of reassessment provisions under the Finance Act, 2021, 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. All writ petitions were allowed, and pending applications were disposed of.

The High Court held that the explanations introduced by the CBDT notifications dated 31.03.2021 and 27.04.2021 were unconstitutional and invalid. The Court reasoned that the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, only empowered the Central Government to extend time limits, not to issue explanations that altered the interpretation or application of statutory provisions. The CBDT, as a subordinate legislation, exceeded its powers by introducing an explanation that effectively sought to amend the Income Tax Act, 1961, by providing that pre-amendment provisions would apply. The Court found it doubtful that an explanation could change the basis of statutory provisions if their plain meaning was clear. The ratio decidendi is that subordinate legislation cannot travel beyond the powers vested in it by the parent Act and cannot amend the parent Act under the guise of clarification. Consequently, the impugned notices under Section 148 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 power delegated 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. Issuing an explanation that provided a clarification on the applicability of Section 148, Section 149, and Section 151, by stating that the provisions as they stood before the commencement of the Finance Act, 2021, would apply, plainly exceeded the jurisdiction of the subordinate legislation. The Court found that a 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 disagreed with the view taken by the Chhattisgarh High Court in Palak Khatuja (supra), holding 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 respective 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 Relaxation Act, 2020, only empowered the Central Government to extend time limits, 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, in the guise of clarification, effectively amended the parent Act's provisions regarding reassessment. The Court found it doubtful that an explanation could change the plain meaning of a statutory provision. 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, which came into effect from April 1, 2021, could not have been deferred by these notifications. Consequently, the notices impugned in the writ petitions were declared invalid and quashed. All writ petitions were allowed, and the revenue's appeals were dismissed.

The High Court held that the explanations introduced by the CBDT notifications dated 31.03.2021 and 27.04.2021 were unconstitutional and invalid. The Court reasoned that the Relaxation Act, 2020, under Section 3(1), only empowered the Central Government to extend time limits for actions and compliances, not to issue explanations that altered the basis of statutory provisions. The CBDT, as a subordinate legislation, exceeded its jurisdiction by introducing an explanation that provided a clarification contrary to the plain meaning of the statutory provisions and the intent of the parent Act. The Court found it doubtful that an explanation, even if termed clarificatory, could change the fundamental basis of statutory provisions. The Court disagreed with the view taken by the Chhattisgarh High Court in Palak Khatuja, stating that the CBDT notifications did not defer the substitution of reassessment provisions under the Finance Act, 2021, and the amendments effective from 01.04.2021 remained in force. 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 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 basis of statutory provisions. The Court found that the CBDT, by introducing an explanation that provided for the application of pre-amendment provisions of Section 148 and Section 149, plainly exceeded its jurisdiction as a subordinate legislation. The Court emphasized 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. 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, could not have been deferred by the CBDT notifications. Consequently, the notices impugned in the writ petitions were quashed and set aside.

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, 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 an explanation that provided for the application of pre-amendment provisions for Section 148 notices, plainly exceeded its jurisdiction as a subordinate legislation. Such subordinate legislation could not travel beyond the powers vested by the parent Act. The Court distinguished this from the view taken by the Chhattisgarh High Court in Palak Khatuja, finding that the substitution of reassessment provisions under the Finance Act, 2021, were not deferred by the notifications. Consequently, the notices impugned in the writ petitions were declared invalid and quashed. 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 in the 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 amend the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by allowing the application of pre-amended Section 148. 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, 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 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, 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 statutory provisions. The CBDT, by introducing an explanation in its notifications dated March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, stating that the provisions as they stood on March 31, 2021, before the commencement of the Finance Act, 2021, would apply for the purpose of issuing notices under Section 148, plainly exceeded its jurisdiction as a subordinate legislation. The Court found that subordinate legislation cannot travel beyond the powers vested by the parent Act. It also held that an explanation, even if termed clarificatory, cannot amend the provisions of the parent Act if the plain meaning is clear. The Court respectfully disagreed with the view taken by the Chhattisgarh High Court in Palak Khatuja (supra), stating that the substitution of reassessment provisions under the Finance Act, 2021, could not have been deferred by the CBDT notifications, and the amendments came into effect on April 1, 2021. Consequently, all writ petitions were allowed, and appeals of the revenue were dismissed.

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 to extend time limits but did not grant authority to issue explanations or clarifications that altered the substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. The CBDT notifications dated March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, by introducing an explanation that the old provisions of Section 148, 149, and 151 would apply, exceeded the delegated powers. Such subordinate legislation cannot travel beyond the parent Act or amend its provisions under the guise of clarification. The Court found these explanations to be unconstitutional and invalid. 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, with effect from April 1, 2021, could not be deferred by the CBDT notifications. Accordingly, all the writ petitions were allowed, and the impugned notices were quashed and set aside.

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. The introduction of an explanation by the CBDT, which effectively provided that the pre-amended Section 148 provisions would apply, went beyond the scope of the delegated power. The Court found that this explanation, in the guise of clarification, attempted to alter the substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act, which subordinate legislation cannot do. The Court explicitly disagreed with the view taken by the Chhattisgarh High Court in Palak Khatuja, stating that the substitution of reassessment provisions under the Finance Act, 2021, could not have been deferred by these notifications, and the amendments were effective from 01.04.2021. Consequently, the notices issued under Section 148 based on these invalid notifications 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 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, only empowered the Central Government to extend time limits, 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 old Section 148 provisions would apply, plainly exceeded the CBDT's jurisdiction as a subordinate legislation. Such subordinate legislation cannot travel beyond the powers vested by the parent Act or amend the parent Act's provisions under the guise of clarification. The Court found these explanations to be unconstitutional and invalid. The Court disagreed with the view taken by the Chhattisgarh High Court in Palak Khatuja (supra), which held the notices valid. The High Court concluded that the substitution of reassessment provisions by the Finance Act, 2021, could not have been deferred by the CBDT notifications, and the amendments came into effect from April 1, 2021. Consequently, 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 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 the pre-amendment provisions of Section 148, 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 a statutory provision. The Court disagreed with the view that these notifications deferred the substitution of reassessment provisions under the Finance Act, 2021, and maintained that the amendments came into effect on April 1, 2021. Consequently, the 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 vested in the Central Government under Section 3(1) of the Relaxation Act, 2020, was limited to extending time limits for actions and compliances. Introducing an explanation that altered the basis of statutory provisions, specifically concerning the applicability of reassessment provisions, 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, even under the guise of clarification. The Court disagreed with the view that the notifications deferred the substitution of reassessment provisions under the Finance Act, 2021, stating that the amendments' effective date remained 01.04.2021. 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 CBDT, as a subordinate legislation, exceeded its jurisdiction by introducing an explanation that sought to clarify or alter the application of statutory provisions beyond the powers vested in it by the parent Act (Relaxation Act, 2020). The Court found that the Relaxation Act, 2020, only empowered the government to extend time limits, not to issue explanations that could change the basis of statutory provisions. 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 their effective date remained April 1, 2021. 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 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 jurisdiction by introducing these explanations. 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 alter or clarify statutory provisions in a manner that effectively amended the parent Act. The Court found that the explanations attempted to change the basis of statutory provisions and could not amend the provisions of the parent Act. The Court disagreed with the view that the notifications deferred the substitution of reassessment provisions under the Finance Act, 2021, stating that the amendments came into effect 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 March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, were unconstitutional and invalid. The Court reasoned that under Section 3(1) of the Relaxation Act, 2020, the Central Government was empowered only to extend time limits for actions and compliances, not to issue explanations that altered the basis of statutory provisions. Introducing an explanation that provided for the application of pre-amended Section 148 provisions, by way of clarification, plainly exceeded the jurisdiction of the CBDT as a subordinate legislation. The Court found that subordinate legislation could not travel beyond the powers vested by the parent Act and that an explanation could not amend the provisions of the parent Act if the plain meaning was 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, were not deferred and their effective date remained April 1, 2021. Consequently, the notices impugned in the writ petitions were declared invalid and quashed. All writ petitions were allowed, and the appeals of the revenue were dismissed.

The High Court held that the explanations introduced by the CBDT notifications dated 31.03.2021 and 27.04.2021, which stated that for the purposes of issuing notices under Section 148, the provisions as they stood on 31.03.2021 before the commencement of the Finance Act, 2021, would apply, were unconstitutional and invalid. The Court reasoned that the CBDT, as a subordinate legislation, exceeded its jurisdiction by introducing these explanations, which travelled beyond the powers vested in the Government of India by the parent Act (Relaxation Act, 2020). The Court found it doubtful that an explanation, even if termed clarificatory, could alter the plain meaning of statutory provisions or amend the parent Act. The Court disagreed with the Chhattisgarh High Court's view in Palak Khatuja, finding 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 petitions were found to be invalid and bad in law. The Court quashed and set aside these notices. The appeals of the revenue were dismissed.

The High Court held that the explanations introduced by the CBDT notifications dated 31.03.2021 and 27.04.2021 were unconstitutional and invalid. The Court reasoned that the Relaxation Act, 2020, under Section 3(1), only empowered the Central Government to extend time limits for actions and compliances, not to issue explanations that altered the interpretation or application of statutory provisions like Section 148. The CBDT, as a subordinate legislation, exceeded its jurisdiction by introducing these explanations, which effectively attempted to amend the parent Act's provisions. The Court found that the subordinate legislation could not travel beyond the powers vested by the parent Act. The Court disagreed with the view taken by the Chhattisgarh High Court in Palak Khatuja (supra), which held that the notices were valid because the notifications deferred the application of the amended Section 148. 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 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 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 issuance of an explanation that provided a clarification on the application of Section 148 and Section 149/151 of the Income Tax Act, by stating that the provisions as they stood before the Finance Act, 2021, would apply, plainly exceeded the delegated jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that subordinate legislation must operate within the confines of 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 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 effective from April 1, 2021, remained operative. Consequently, the notices impugned in the writ petitions were declared invalid and quashed.

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 CBDT, as a subordinate legislation, had exceeded its jurisdiction by introducing explanations that provided for the application of pre-amendment provisions of Section 148. The parent Act, the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, only empowered the government to extend time limits, not to alter the basis of statutory provisions or to amend the parent Act through an explanation. The Court found that the subordinate legislation could not travel beyond the powers vested in it by the parent Act. The Court also disagreed with the view of the Chhattisgarh High Court in Palak Khatuja (supra), stating that the substitution of reassessment provisions by 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 writ petitions were declared invalid and quashed. All writ petitions were allowed, and the appeals of the revenue were dismissed.

The High Court held that the notices impugned in the respective petitions are invalid and bad in law, and accordingly quashed and set aside. The Court found that the CBDT, by introducing an explanation in the notifications dated 31.03.2021 and 27.04.2021, which provided that for the purposes of issuance of notice under Section 148, the provisions as they stood on 31.03.2021 before the commencement of the Finance Act, 2021, shall apply, plainly exceeded its jurisdiction as a subordinate legislation. The Court reasoned that subordinate legislation must operate within the confines of the powers vested in it by the parent Act, and the Relaxation Act, 2020, only empowered the Central Government to extend time limits, not to issue explanations that altered the basis of statutory provisions. The Court disagreed with the Chhattisgarh High Court's view, stating that the substitution of reassessment provisions under the Finance Act, 2021, were not deferred by the notifications. Therefore, the notices issued under the old provisions were held to be invalid. All writ petitions were allowed.