Rajasthan High Court Judgments — 2022

The High Court held that the notifications dated March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, issued by the CBDT, which introduced an explanation stating that for the purposes of issuing notices under Section 148, the provisions as they stood on March 31, 2021, before the commencement of the Finance Act, 2021, would apply, 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 travelling beyond the powers vested in it by the parent Act. The Court found it doubtful that an explanation, even in the guise of clarification, could change the plain meaning of statutory provisions or amend the parent Act. The Court disagreed with the view taken by the Chhattisgarh High Court in Palak Khatuja (supra), stating that the substitution of reassessment provisions by the Finance Act, 2021, effective April 1, 2021, could not be deferred by the CBDT notifications. Consequently, the notices impugned in the writ petitions were found to be invalid and bad in law and were quashed and set aside. The appeals of the revenue were dismissed.

The High Court held that the explanation inserted by the CBDT in its notifications dated 31.03.2021 and 27.04.2021 was 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. It did not grant the power to issue explanations that touched upon the provisions of the Income Tax Act itself, especially in a manner that altered the statutory framework. The Court found that the CBDT, by introducing the explanation, plainly exceeded its jurisdiction as a subordinate legislation, as it attempted to amend the parent Act's provisions indirectly. The Court disagreed with the Chhattisgarh High Court's view that the notifications deferred the substitution of reassessment provisions under the Finance Act, 2021. The Court concluded that the notices impugned in the respective petitions were invalid and bad in law. Consequently, all the writ petitions were allowed, and the notices were quashed and set aside. The appeals of the revenue were dismissed.

The High Court held that the explanations inserted by the CBDT notifications dated March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, were unconstitutional and invalid. The Court reasoned that the Relaxation Act, 2020, under Section 3(1), only empowered the Central Government to extend time limits for actions and compliances, not to issue explanations that altered the interpretation or application of statutory provisions. The CBDT, as a subordinate legislation, exceeded its jurisdiction by introducing an explanation that effectively sought to apply the pre-amended provisions of Section 148 and Section 149, thereby circumventing the new reassessment regime introduced by the Finance Act, 2021. The Court found that the subordinate legislation could not travel beyond the powers vested by the parent Act and could not amend the provisions of the parent Act under the guise of clarification. The Court respectfully 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 these notifications, and the amendments came into effect from April 1, 2021. Consequently, the notices impugned in the writ petitions were found to be invalid and bad in law. 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 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 touched upon the provisions of the Income Tax Act, particularly by providing a clarification that could change 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 and that a subordinate legislature cannot amend the provisions of the parent Act by way of an explanation, even if described as clarificatory. Consequently, the notices impugned in the respective petitions were declared 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 Court explicitly stated that the substitution of reassessment provisions under the Finance Act, 2021, came into effect on April 1, 2021, and could not have been deferred by the notifications.

The High Court held that the notices impugned in the writ petitions are invalid and bad in law, and therefore, quashed and set aside. The Court reasoned that the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, empowered the Central Government to extend time limits but not to issue explanations that altered the substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. The CBDT's notifications dated March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, which introduced an explanation stating that the pre-amendment provisions of Section 148, 149, and 151 would apply, were found to have exceeded the delegated power. Such subordinate legislation could not travel beyond the powers vested by the parent Act and could not amend the provisions of the parent Act under the guise of clarification. The Court found the explanations unconstitutional and invalid. The Court respectfully disagreed with the view of the Chhattisgarh High Court, stating that the substitution of reassessment provisions by the Finance Act, 2021, could not have been deferred by the CBDT notifications. Accordingly, all writ petitions were allowed, and the revenue's appeals were dismissed.

The High Court held that the explanations introduced by the CBDT notifications dated March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, were unconstitutional and invalid. The Court reasoned that the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, only empowered the Central Government to extend time limits for actions and compliances, not to issue explanations that altered the basis of statutory provisions. The CBDT, as a subordinate legislation, had exceeded its jurisdiction by introducing an explanation that sought to apply the pre-amendment provisions of Section 148, thereby attempting to amend the parent Act. The Court found it doubtful whether 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), stating that the substitution of reassessment provisions under the Finance Act, 2021, could not have been deferred by these notifications, and the amendments came into effect on April 1, 2021. Consequently, the notices impugned in the writ petitions were quashed and set aside as invalid and bad in law. All writ petitions were allowed, and appeals of the revenue were dismissed.

The High Court held that the explanations introduced by the CBDT notifications dated 31.03.2021 and 27.04.2021 were unconstitutional and invalid. The Court reasoned that the Relaxation Act, 2020, under Section 3(1), only empowered the Central Government to extend time limits for compliances. Issuing an explanation that provided for the application of pre-amendment provisions of Section 148, by way of clarification, plainly exceeded the CBDT's jurisdiction as a subordinate legislation. The subordinate legislation could not have travelled 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 found the plain meaning of the statutory provision clear, and the explanation adopted a position different from it. Therefore, the notices impugned in the respective petitions were declared invalid and bad in law, and were quashed and set aside. The Court explicitly disagreed with the view taken by the Chhattisgarh High Court in Palak Khatuja (supra).

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 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 that altered the basis of statutory provisions. The CBDT, by introducing an explanation in its notifications dated March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, stating that the pre-amendment provisions of Section 148 would apply, plainly exceeded its jurisdiction 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 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 old Section 148 was insulated until June 30, 2021. The High Court found that the substitution of reassessment provisions under the Finance Act, 2021, was not deferred and the amendments came into effect on April 1, 2021. Therefore, all the writ petitions were allowed.

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 statutory provisions. The Court found that the introduction of the explanation by the CBDT, which provided that the provisions as they stood on March 31, 2021, before the commencement of the Finance Act, 2021, would apply for the purposes of issuance of notice under Section 148, plainly exceeded its jurisdiction as a subordinate legislation. 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 Court noted that two Division Benches of the Allahabad and Delhi High Courts had taken a similar view, while acknowledging a differing 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 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, without proper legislative authority. 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 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 the CBDT notifications. Consequently, the notices impugned in the respective 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 Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, only empowered the Central Government to extend time limits for compliances, not to issue explanations that altered the substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. The CBDT, as a subordinate legislation, exceeded its jurisdiction by introducing these explanations, which attempted 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, could not have been deferred by these notifications, and the amendments came into effect from 01.04.2021. Consequently, the notices impugned in the writ 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 CBDT, as a subordinate legislation, had exceeded its jurisdiction by introducing these explanations. The parent Act, the Relaxation Act, 2020, only empowered the government to extend time limits, not to issue explanations that altered statutory provisions or amended the parent Act. The Court found it doubtful that an explanation, even if termed a clarification, could change the plain meaning of a statutory provision. The Court disagreed with the Chhattisgarh High Court's view that the notifications deferred the substitution of reassessment provisions. Consequently, the notices impugned in the writ petitions were declared invalid and quashed. The Court noted that two Division Benches of the Allahabad and Delhi High Courts, and two learned Single Judges of the Calcutta and Rajasthan High Courts had taken a similar view.

The High Court held that the notifications dated 31.03.2021 and 27.04.2021 issued by the CBDT, introducing an explanation that the old provisions of Section 148 would apply, 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 amended the provisions of the Income Tax Act. The Court found that such an explanation could not change the plain meaning of the statutory provision or amend the parent Act. The Court disagreed with the view of the Chhattisgarh High Court, stating that the substitution of reassessment provisions under the Finance Act, 2021, which came into effect from 01.04.2021, could not have been deferred by the CBDT 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.

The High Court held that the explanations introduced by the CBDT notifications dated 31.03.2021 and 27.04.2021 were unconstitutional and invalid. The Court reasoned that the CBDT, in issuing these explanations, plainly exceeded its jurisdiction as a subordinate legislation. 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. 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 Chhattisgarh High Court's view, stating that the substitution of reassessment provisions under the Finance Act, 2021, which came into effect from 01.04.2021, could not have been deferred by the CBDT notifications. Consequently, the reassessment notices impugned in the respective petitions were found to be invalid and bad in law. All the writ petitions were allowed, and 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 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 granted the power to extend time limits for actions and compliances. The introduction of an explanation that provided a clarification, which in effect sought to apply the pre-amended provisions of Section 148 and Section 149, went beyond the delegated power. The Court found that the subordinate legislation could not travel beyond the powers vested in it by the parent Act. It further stated that an explanation, even if termed clarificatory, cannot amend the provisions of the parent Act if the plain meaning of the statutory provision is clear. The Court disagreed with the view taken by the Chhattisgarh High Court in Palak Khatuja (supra), 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 therefore, quashed and set them 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 empowered the Central Government to extend time limits for action and compliance, not to issue explanations that altered the substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. The CBDT, in introducing an explanation that provided for the application of pre-amendment provisions for Section 148 notices, plainly exceeded its jurisdiction as a subordinate legislation. The Court found it doubtful that an explanation, even if termed clarificatory, could change the plain meaning of a statutory provision or effectively amend the parent Act. The Court disagreed with the view that the notifications deferred the substitution of reassessment provisions under the Finance Act, 2021, stating that the amendments came into effect on 01.04.2021. Consequently, the notices impugned in the writ petitions were declared invalid and quashed. The High Court allowed all the writ petitions and dismissed the appeals of the revenue.

The High Court held that the explanations introduced by the CBDT notifications dated 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 action and compliance, not to issue explanations that altered the basis of statutory provisions. The CBDT, by introducing an explanation that effectively allowed the application of the pre-amended Section 148 provisions beyond the intended period, plainly exceeded its jurisdiction as a subordinate legislation. The Court found that such subordinate legislation could not travel beyond the powers vested by the parent Act. The Court disagreed with the view that the notifications deferred the substitution of reassessment provisions under the Finance Act, 2021, stating that the amendments were effective from 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 explanation introduced by the CBDT notifications dated March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, was unconstitutional and invalid. The Court reasoned that the Relaxation Act, 2020, only empowered the Central Government to extend time limits for actions and compliances, not to issue explanations that altered the substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. The CBDT, as a subordinate legislation, exceeded its jurisdiction by introducing an explanation that effectively changed the basis of statutory provisions, particularly concerning the applicability of Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. The Court found that the subordinate legislation could not travel beyond the powers vested by the parent Act and that an explanation cannot amend the provisions of the parent Act if its meaning is clear. The Court explicitly disagreed with the view taken by the Chhattisgarh High Court in Palak Khatuja (supra), stating that the substitution of reassessment provisions under the Finance Act, 2021, were not deferred by the notifications. 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 March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, were unconstitutional and invalid. The Court reasoned that the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, under Section 3(1), only empowered the Central Government to extend time limits for actions and compliances. The introduction of an explanation that dictated the applicability of Section 148 provisions as they stood before the Finance Act, 2021, constituted an act beyond the delegated powers. The Court found that subordinate legislation cannot amend or alter the provisions of the parent Act, even under the guise of clarification. It 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 that the amendments came into effect on April 1, 2021. Consequently, the notices impugned in the writ petitions were quashed and set aside. The Court explicitly stated that the learned Single Judge committed no error in quashing these notices.

The Tribunal held that the explanations introduced by the CBDT notifications dated 31.03.2021 and 27.04.2021 were unconstitutional and invalid. The Court reasoned that the power vested in the Central Government under Section 3(1) of the Relaxation Act, 2020, was limited to extending time limits for actions and compliances, and did not include the power to issue explanations that altered the basis of statutory provisions. The Court found that the CBDT, by introducing these explanations, plainly exceeded its jurisdiction as a subordinate legislation, as it attempted to amend the provisions of the parent Act. The Tribunal disagreed with the view that the notifications deferred the applicability of the amended reassessment provisions, stating 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. The Tribunal quashed and set aside these notices. The operative direction was to quash the notices and allow the writ petitions.

The High Court held that the explanations introduced by the CBDT notifications dated 31.03.2021 and 27.04.2021 were unconstitutional and invalid. The Court reasoned that the CBDT, in issuing these explanations, plainly exceeded its jurisdiction as a subordinate legislation. The Relaxation Act, 2020, under which the notifications were issued, only empowered the Central Government to extend time limits, not to provide explanations that touched upon the provisions of the Income Tax Act or changed their basis. The Court emphasized that subordinate legislation must remain within the confines of 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 of the Chhattisgarh High Court in Palak Khatuja, finding that the substitution of reassessment provisions under the Finance Act, 2021, which came into effect from 01.04.2021, could not be deferred or insulated by the CBDT notifications. Consequently, the notices impugned in the respective petitions were declared invalid and bad in law, and were quashed and set aside. The writ petitions were allowed.

The High Court held that the explanations introduced by the CBDT notifications dated 31.03.2021 and 27.04.2021 were unconstitutional and invalid. The Court reasoned that the Relaxation Act, 2020, under Section 3(1), only empowered the Central Government to extend time limits for actions and compliances, not to issue explanations that altered the substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. The CBDT, as a subordinate legislation, exceeded its jurisdiction by introducing an explanation that provided a clarification contrary to the plain meaning and interpretation of the statutory provisions. The Court found that the subordinate legislation could not travel beyond the powers vested by the parent Act and that an explanation cannot amend the provisions of the parent Act. The Court disagreed with the view taken by the Chhattisgarh High Court in Palak Khatuja (supra), which held that the impugned notices were valid because the application of Section 148 was deferred. The High Court concluded that the substitution of reassessment provisions under the Finance Act, 2021, which came into effect from 01.04.2021, could not have been deferred by these notifications. Consequently, the notices impugned in the respective petitions were declared invalid and 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 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 an explanation that provided for the application of pre-amendment provisions of Section 148, 149, and 151, plainly exceeded its jurisdiction as a subordinate legislation. Such subordinate legislation could not travel beyond the powers vested by the parent Act. The Court disagreed with the view of the Chhattisgarh High Court in Palak Khatuja, stating that the notifications could not defer the substitution of reassessment provisions framed under the Finance Act, 2021, and that the amendments effective from April 1, 2021, remained so. Consequently, the notices impugned in the writ petitions were found to be invalid and bad in law and were quashed and set aside. The appeals of the revenue were dismissed.

The High Court held that the explanations introduced by the CBDT notifications dated March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, were unconstitutional and invalid. The Court reasoned that the power vested in the Central Government under Section 3(1) of the Relaxation Act, 2020, was limited to extending time limits for action and compliance. Issuing an explanation that altered the application of statutory provisions, particularly regarding the reassessment provisions under the Income Tax Act, 1961, 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 basis of statutory provisions when their plain meaning was clear. The Court disagreed with the view taken by the Chhattisgarh High Court, stating that the substitution of reassessment provisions under the Finance Act, 2021, was not deferred by the notifications, and the amendments came into effect from April 1, 2021. 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 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 CBDT, as a subordinate legislation, exceeded its jurisdiction by introducing an explanation that provided clarification on the applicability of Section 148, effectively altering the basis of statutory provisions. 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 applicability of Section 148 was deferred. The High Court concluded that the substitution of reassessment provisions under the Finance Act, 2021, which came into effect from April 1, 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 introduced by the CBDT notifications dated 31.03.2021 and 27.04.2021 were unconstitutional and invalid. The Court reasoned that the Relaxation Act, 2020, under Section 3(1), only empowered the Central Government to extend time limits for actions and compliances. Issuing an explanation that touched upon the provisions of the Income Tax Act, specifically regarding the application of Section 148, was beyond the scope of this delegated power. Subordinate legislation must operate within the confines of the parent Act and cannot amend its provisions, even under the guise of clarification. The Court disagreed with the view that these notifications deferred the substitution of reassessment provisions under the Finance Act, 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 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 granted the Central Government the power to extend time limits for compliances. Issuing an explanation that provided a clarification on the applicability of Section 148, Section 149, and Section 151 of the Income Tax Act, by stating that the provisions as they stood before the commencement of the Finance Act, 2021, would apply, plainly exceeded the delegated jurisdiction. The Court found that subordinate legislation cannot travel beyond the powers vested by the parent Act and cannot amend the provisions of the parent Act under the guise of a clarification. The Court respectfully disagreed with the view taken by the Chhattisgarh High Court in Palak Khatuja (supra), stating that the substitution of reassessment provisions under the Finance Act, 2021, could not have been deferred by these notifications. Consequently, the notices impugned in the respective petitions were declared invalid and quashed. The Court also noted that the learned Single Judge had committed no error in quashing these notices.

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 CBDT, as a subordinate legislation, exceeded its jurisdiction by introducing an explanation that provided for the application of pre-amended Section 148, 149, and 151 provisions, effectively 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 respectfully 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, which came into effect on April 1, 2021, could not have been deferred by these notifications. Consequently, the notices impugned in the petitions were found to be invalid and bad in law and were quashed and set aside. All writ petitions were allowed, 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 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. The CBDT, as a subordinate legislation, exceeded its jurisdiction by introducing an explanation that provided for the application of pre-amendment Section 148 provisions, effectively 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 a clarificatory explanation could not change the plain meaning of a statutory provision. Consequently, the notices impugned in the writ petitions were quashed and set aside as invalid and bad in law. The Court noted that while a Single Judge of the Chhattisgarh High Court had taken a different view, it was unable to persuade itself to accept that analysis. All writ petitions were allowed.

The High Court held that the notifications dated 31.03.2021 and 27.04.2021 issued by the CBDT, which introduced an explanation stating 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, shall apply, were unconstitutional and invalid. The Court reasoned that the power vested in the Central Government under Section 3(1) of the Relaxation Act, 2020, was limited to extending time limits for action and compliance. Issuing an explanation that touched upon the provisions of the Income Tax Act, thereby altering the basis of statutory provisions, was beyond the scope of this delegated power. The Court found that the subordinate legislation (the notifications) had travelled beyond the powers vested in the Government by the parent Act. The Court also noted that an explanation, even if termed clarificatory, cannot amend the provisions of the parent Act if the plain meaning of the statutory provision is clear. The Court disagreed with the view taken by the Chhattisgarh High Court in Palak Khatuja (supra), which held that the impugned 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.

The High Court held that the explanations introduced by the CBDT notifications dated 31.03.2021 and 27.04.2021 were unconstitutional and invalid. The Court reasoned that the power vested in the Central Government under Section 3(1) of the Relaxation Act, 2020, was limited to extending time limits for actions and compliances, and did not include the power to issue explanations that altered the basis of statutory provisions 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 notifications did not defer the substitution of reassessment provisions framed under the Finance Act, 2021, and the amendments coming into effect on 01.04.2021 remained valid. Consequently, the notices impugned in the respective petitions were declared invalid and bad in law, and were quashed and set aside. All writ petitions were allowed, and the revenue's appeals were dismissed.

The High Court held that the notices impugned in the respective petitions are invalid and bad in law, and consequently quashed and set them 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 or clarifications that altered the fundamental provisions of the Income Tax Act. The CBDT, by introducing an explanation in its notifications stating that the pre-amended Section 148 provisions would apply for the purpose of issuing notices under Section 148, Section 149, and Section 151, plainly exceeded its jurisdiction as a subordinate legislation. Such subordinate legislation could not travel beyond the powers vested by the parent Act. The Court found it doubtful that an explanation, even if termed clarificatory, could change the 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 notifications deferred the application of the amended Section 148. The High Court concluded that the amendments brought by the Finance Act, 2021, came into effect from April 1, 2021, and the notices issued thereafter under the old provisions were invalid.

The High Court held that the explanations introduced by the CBDT notifications dated 31.03.2021 and 27.04.2021 were unconstitutional and invalid. The Court reasoned that the CBDT, in issuing these explanations, plainly exceeded its jurisdiction as a subordinate legislation. The parent Act, the Relaxation Act, 2020, only empowered the Central Government to extend time limits by issuing notifications, not to introduce explanations that altered the interpretation or applicability of statutory provisions. The Court found that a 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 by adopting a position different from the plain meaning of the statutory provision. 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, 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 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 the Central Government the power to extend time limits by issuing notifications. Issuing an explanation that touched upon the provisions of the Income Tax Act, particularly by seeking to apply pre-amended provisions for issuing notices under Section 148, plainly exceeded the CBDT's jurisdiction as a subordinate legislation. The Court found that subordinate legislation cannot travel beyond the powers vested by the parent Act and cannot amend the provisions of the parent Act through an explanation, even if described as clarificatory. 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, came into effect on 01.04.2021 and could not have been 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 notifications dated 31.03.2021 and 27.04.2021 issued by the CBDT, which introduced an explanation stating that the provisions of Section 148, 149, and 151 as they stood on 31.03.2021 before the commencement of the Finance Act, 2021, shall apply for the purpose of issuance of notice under Section 148, were unconstitutional and invalid. The Court reasoned that the Relaxation Act, 2020, under which these notifications were issued, only empowered the Central Government to extend time limits for actions and compliances. The introduction of an explanation that provided a clarification on the applicability of statutory provisions, particularly by way of altering the basis of reassessment procedures, clearly exceeded the scope of the delegated power. The Court emphasized that subordinate legislation must operate within the confines of the powers vested by the parent Act and cannot amend the parent Act's provisions. The Court disagreed with the Chhattisgarh High Court's view 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 01.04.2021. 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 notices impugned in the writ petitions are invalid and bad in law, and therefore, quashed and set aside. The Court reasoned that the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, empowered the Central Government only to extend time limits, not to issue explanations that altered the basis of statutory provisions. The CBDT's notifications dated March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, which introduced an explanation stating that for the purpose of Section 148 notices, the provisions as they stood on March 31, 2021, would apply, were found to have exceeded the delegated power. Such subordinate legislation could not travel beyond the powers vested by the parent Act and could not amend the provisions of the parent Act under the guise of clarification. The Court disagreed with the view taken by the Chhattisgarh High Court in Palak Khatuja, finding that the notifications did not defer the substitution of reassessment provisions by the Finance Act, 2021, which remained effective from April 1, 2021. Consequently, 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, which sought to apply the pre-amended Section 148 provisions for issuing reassessment notices, 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 fundamental basis of statutory provisions. The CBDT, as a subordinate legislation, had exceeded its jurisdiction by introducing these explanations, which effectively attempted 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. It disagreed with the Chhattisgarh High Court's view that the notifications deferred the substitution of reassessment provisions. Consequently, the notices impugned in the writ petitions were declared invalid and quashed. 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 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-amended Section 148 provisions, thereby attempting to amend the parent Act. The Court found that such subordinate legislation could not travel beyond the powers vested by the parent Act and that an explanation could not 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. Accordingly, the impugned notices under Section 148 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 granted under Section 3(1) of the Relaxation Act, 2020, was limited to extending time limits for actions and compliances, and did not authorize the Central Government or the CBDT to issue explanations that altered the substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. Introducing an explanation that provided that the pre-amendment provisions of Section 148 would apply, even if described as a clarification, was an attempt to amend the parent Act by subordinate legislation, which is impermissible. The Court found that such subordinate legislation had travelled beyond the powers vested in the government by the parent Act and was therefore invalid. The Court disagreed with the view taken by the Chhattisgarh High Court in Palak Khatuja (supra), finding that the notifications did not defer the substitution of reassessment provisions framed under the Finance Act, 2021, and the amendments came into effect from 01.04.2021. Consequently, the notices impugned in the respective petitions were found to be invalid and bad in law and were quashed and set aside. All writ petitions were allowed.

The High Court held that the explanations introduced by the CBDT notifications dated 31.03.2021 and 27.04.2021 were unconstitutional and invalid. The Court reasoned that the Relaxation Act, 2020, specifically 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 of the CBDT as a subordinate legislation. The subordinate legislation could not travel beyond the powers vested in it by the parent Act, nor could it amend the provisions of the parent Act under the guise of clarification. The Court disagreed with the view taken by the Chhattisgarh High Court, finding that the notifications did not defer the substitution of reassessment provisions framed under the Finance Act, 2021, and the amendments came into effect from 01.04.2021. Consequently, the notices impugned in the petitions were 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 notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were invalid and bad in law. The Court reasoned that the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, empowered the Central Government only to extend time limits for actions and compliances, not to issue explanations that altered the substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. The CBDT's notifications, by introducing an explanation that the pre-amendment provisions of Section 148 would apply, exceeded the scope of the delegated power and acted as unconstitutional subordinate legislation. The Court found that such an explanation could not amend the parent Act or change the statutory provisions. The Court disagreed with the Chhattisgarh High Court's view that the notifications deferred the applicability of the new provisions, stating that the amendments effective from April 1, 2021, could not be deferred. Consequently, all impugned notices were quashed and set aside. The writ petitions were allowed, and the revenue's appeals 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 to clarify that the old reassessment provisions would apply, were unconstitutional and invalid. The Court reasoned that the power vested in the Central Government under Section 3(1) of the Relaxation Act, 2020, was limited to extending time limits for actions and compliances, and did not include the power to issue explanations that altered the basis of statutory provisions. Introducing such an explanation by way of clarification was deemed to be an act of exceeding jurisdiction as a subordinate legislation, as it attempted to amend the parent Act's provisions. The Court found that subordinate legislation must remain within the confines of the powers granted by the parent Act and cannot travel beyond it. The Court explicitly 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 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 appeals of the revenue were dismissed.

The High Court held that the explanations introduced by the CBDT notifications dated 31.03.2021 and 27.04.2021 were unconstitutional and invalid. The Court reasoned that the Relaxation Act, 2020, only empowered the Central Government to extend time limits for actions and compliances, not to issue explanations that altered the basis of statutory provisions. The CBDT, as a subordinate legislation, exceeded its jurisdiction by introducing an explanation that provided a clarification contrary to the plain meaning of the statutory provisions and effectively sought to amend the parent Act. The Court disagreed with the Chhattisgarh High Court's view in Palak Khatuja, stating that the notifications did not defer the substitution of reassessment provisions under the Finance Act, 2021, and the amendments came into effect on 01.04.2021. Consequently, the notices impugned in the respective 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 issued by the CBDT, which introduced an explanation stating 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, plainly exceeded the jurisdiction of the CBDT as a subordinate legislation. 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 action and compliance, and did not include the power to issue explanations that altered the basis of statutory provisions or amended the parent Act. The Court found that the explanation, in the guise of clarification, attempted to change the very basis of the statutory provisions and could not be permitted to amend the provisions of the parent Act. Therefore, these explanations were declared unconstitutional and invalid. 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, and their 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 explicitly stated that the learned Single Judge committed no error in quashing these notices.

The High Court held that the explanations introduced by the CBDT notifications dated 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 action and compliance, 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 provided a clarification contrary to the plain meaning of the statutory provisions and effectively amended the parent Act. The Court found it doubtful that an explanation, even if termed clarificatory, could change the fundamental statutory provisions. The Court disagreed with the view taken by the Chhattisgarh High Court in Palak Khatuja, stating that the substitution of reassessment provisions under the Finance Act, 2021, which came into effect from 01.04.2021, 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 appeals of the revenue were dismissed.

The High Court held that the explanations introduced by the CBDT notifications dated March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, were unconstitutional and invalid. The Court reasoned that the Relaxation Act, 2020, under Section 3(1), only empowered the Central Government to extend time limits for actions and compliances, not to issue explanations that affected the interpretation or application of substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. The CBDT, as a delegatee of this power, exceeded its jurisdiction by introducing an explanation that sought to clarify that pre-amendment provisions of Section 148 would apply. The Court found that this explanation, in the guise of clarification, effectively attempted to amend the parent Act, which is impermissible for subordinate legislation. 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, 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 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 introduce explanations that altered the basis of statutory provisions. The CBDT, as a subordinate legislation, had plainly 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. 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 Chhattisgarh High Court's view, stating that the notifications did not defer the substitution of reassessment provisions by the Finance Act, 2021, and the amendments' 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 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 substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. The CBDT, by introducing an explanation that dictated the applicability of Section 148 and Section 149 as they stood before the Finance Act, 2021, plainly exceeded its jurisdiction as a subordinate legislation. 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, stating that the notifications did not defer the substitution of reassessment provisions under the Finance Act, 2021, 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. 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 fundamental basis of statutory provisions. The CBDT, as a subordinate legislation, exceeded its jurisdiction by introducing these explanations, which were not part of the delegated powers. 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), stating that the substitution of reassessment provisions under the Finance Act, 2021, could not have been deferred by these notifications. Consequently, the notices impugned in the writ petitions were declared invalid and quashed. The Court allowed all the writ petitions and dismissed the appeals of the revenue.

The High Court held that the explanations 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 dictated the applicability of Section 148 provisions as they stood before the Finance Act, 2021, was beyond the scope of this delegated power. The Court found that this constituted an overreach by subordinate legislation, as it attempted to alter the basis of statutory provisions without explicit authorization from the parent Act. The Court distinguished this from merely extending time limits. It noted that subordinate legislation cannot travel beyond the powers vested by the parent Act and cannot amend the parent Act's provisions under the guise of clarification. The Court 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 writ petitions were invalid and bad in law, quashing and setting them aside. The appeals of the revenue were dismissed.