Rajasthan High Court Judgments — 2022

The High Court held that the explanations introduced by the CBDT notifications dated 31.03.2021 and 27.04.2021 were unconstitutional and invalid. The Court reasoned that the 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 substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. The CBDT, as a subordinate legislation, exceeded its jurisdiction by introducing an explanation that sought to apply the old Section 148 provisions beyond their intended period, effectively attempting to amend the parent Act. The Court found it doubtful that an explanation, even if termed clarificatory, could change the plain meaning of a statutory provision. The Court 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 noted that while a Single Judge of the Chhattisgarh High Court had taken a different view, it was unable to persuade itself to accept that analysis. All writ petitions were allowed, and 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. Issuing an explanation that altered the basis of statutory provisions, particularly by providing a clarification that changed the very nature of the reassessment provisions under the Income Tax Act, exceeded the scope of delegated legislation. Subordinate legislation cannot travel beyond the powers granted by the parent Act. 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 as the application of Section 148 was deferred. The High Court concluded that the notices impugned in the writ petitions were invalid and bad in law. Accordingly, the notices were quashed and set aside, and all the writ petitions were allowed.

The High Court held that the explanations introduced by the CBDT notifications dated March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, were unconstitutional and invalid. The Court reasoned that the Relaxation Act, 2020, under Section 3(1), only empowered the Central Government to extend time limits for actions and compliances. The introduction of an explanation by the CBDT, which provided a clarification that effectively altered the application of Section 148 and Section 149/151 by reverting to the pre-amendment provisions, went beyond the scope of the delegated power. The Court emphasized that subordinate legislation must operate within the confines of the parent Act and cannot amend or override statutory provisions. The Court found it doubtful that an explanation, even if termed clarificatory, could change the fundamental basis of statutory provisions when their plain meaning was clear. The Court disagreed with the view taken by the Chhattisgarh High Court in Palak Khatuja, holding that the substitution of reassessment provisions under the Finance Act, 2021, which came into effect from April 1, 2021, could not be deferred by these notifications. Consequently, the notices impugned in the writ petitions were quashed and set aside as invalid and bad in law. The Court explicitly stated that the learned Single Judge committed no error in quashing these notices.

The High Court held that the explanations introduced by the CBDT notifications dated March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, were unconstitutional and invalid. The Court reasoned that the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, 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, as a subordinate legislation, exceeded its jurisdiction by introducing an explanation that effectively sought to amend the provisions of the Income Tax 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 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 April 1, 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 in its notifications dated 31.03.2021 and 27.04.2021 were unconstitutional and invalid. The Court reasoned that the power vested in the Central Government under Section 3(1) of the Relaxation Act, 2020, was limited to extending time limits for actions and compliances. Issuing an explanation that dictated the applicability of provisions of the Income Tax Act, particularly concerning the issuance of notices under Section 148, went beyond the scope of this delegated power. The Court found that the subordinate legislation (CBDT notifications) had travelled beyond the powers vested by the parent Act. Furthermore, the Court stated that an explanation, even if termed clarificatory, cannot amend the plain meaning of a statutory provision. The Court respectfully disagreed with the view taken by the Chhattisgarh High Court in Palak Khatuja, holding that the substitution of reassessment provisions by the Finance Act, 2021, was not deferred by the notifications, and the amendments came into effect from 01.04.2021. Consequently, the 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 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, thereby altering the basis of statutory provisions as they stood before the commencement of the Finance Act, 2021, plainly exceeded the jurisdiction of the CBDT as a subordinate legislation. The Court found that subordinate legislation cannot travel beyond the powers vested in it by the parent Act and cannot amend the provisions of the parent Act under the guise of a clarification. The Court 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 impugned notices under Section 148 were invalid and bad in law and accordingly 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 Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, under Section 3(1), only empowered the Central Government to extend time limits for actions and compliances, not to issue explanations that altered the basis of statutory provisions. The CBDT, as a subordinate legislation, exceeded its jurisdiction by introducing an explanation that effectively sought to apply the pre-amended Section 148 provisions, thereby attempting to amend the parent Act. The Court found this to be beyond the delegated powers. The Court disagreed with the Chhattisgarh High Court's view, stating that the substitution of reassessment provisions under the Finance Act, 2021, which came into effect on 01.04.2021, could not have been deferred by these notifications. Consequently, the reassessment notices impugned in the petitions were declared invalid and quashed.

The High Court held that the explanation introduced by the CBDT notifications dated 31.03.2021 and 27.04.2021 was unconstitutional and invalid. The Court reasoned that the power vested in the Central Government under Section 3(1) of the Relaxation Act, 2020, was limited to extending time limits for actions and compliances. Issuing an explanation that touched upon the provisions of the Income Tax Act, particularly by providing a clarification that altered the basis of statutory provisions, exceeded the scope of this delegated power. Subordinate legislation must operate within the confines of the parent Act and cannot amend its provisions. 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 found to be invalid and bad in law. The ratio decidendi is that subordinate legislation cannot introduce clarifications that effectively amend or override the parent statute, especially when the delegated power is limited to extending timeframes.

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 amended the parent Act. The Court found that these explanations could not change the very basis of the statutory provisions and were therefore beyond the delegated powers. The Court disagreed with the view taken by the Chhattisgarh High Court in Palak Khatuja (supra), stating that the substitution of reassessment provisions under the Finance Act, 2021, were not deferred by the notifications, and their effective date remained 01.04.2021. Consequently, the reassessment 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 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 basis of statutory provisions. The CBDT, as a subordinate legislation, exceeded its jurisdiction by introducing an explanation that provided a clarification contrary to the plain meaning of the statutory provisions and effectively sought to amend the parent Act. The Court found it doubtful that an explanation, even if termed clarificatory, could change the fundamental basis of statutory provisions. The Court disagreed with the view 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 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, 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 stating that pre-amendment provisions would apply. The Court found that a subordinate legislature cannot amend the provisions of a parent Act by adopting a different position in 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 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 writ petitions were declared invalid and quashed. The appeals of the revenue were dismissed.

The High Court held that the explanations introduced by the CBDT notifications dated 31.03.2021 and 27.04.2021 were unconstitutional and invalid. The Court reasoned that 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, in introducing an explanation that provided for the application of pre-amendment Section 148 provisions, plainly exceeded its jurisdiction as a subordinate legislation. The subordinate legislation could not travel beyond the powers vested by the parent Act. The Court found it doubtful that an explanation, even if termed clarificatory, could change the plain meaning of a statutory provision or amend the parent Act. The Court disagreed with the view taken by the Chhattisgarh High Court in Palak Khatuja (supra), which held that the notifications deferred the application of the amended provisions. The High Court concluded that the notices impugned in the writ 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 March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, were unconstitutional and invalid. The Court reasoned that under Section 3(1) of the Relaxation Act, 2020, the Central Government was empowered only to extend time limits, not to issue explanations that altered the basis of statutory provisions or amended the parent Act. The Court found that the CBDT, by introducing the explanation, had plainly exceeded its jurisdiction as a subordinate legislation. The ratio decidendi is that subordinate legislation cannot travel beyond the powers vested in it by the parent Act, and an explanation cannot amend the provisions of the parent Act if the plain meaning is clear. The Court quashed and set aside all the impugned notices. The writ petitions were allowed, and the appeals of the revenue were dismissed.

The High Court held that the explanations introduced by the CBDT 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 an explanation that provided for the application of pre-amendment provisions for Section 148 notices, plainly exceeded its jurisdiction as a subordinate legislation. The subordinate legislation could not travel beyond the powers vested by the parent Act. The Court found it doubtful that an explanation, even if termed clarificatory, could change the plain meaning of statutory provisions. The Court disagreed with the view of the Chhattisgarh High Court in Palak Khatuja (supra), finding that the substitution of reassessment provisions under the Finance Act, 2021, were not deferred and the amendments came into effect from April 1, 2021. Consequently, the notices impugned in the writ petitions were quashed and set aside. The Court explicitly left no issue undecided.

The High Court held that the explanations introduced by the CBDT notifications dated March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, were unconstitutional and invalid. The Court reasoned that the CBDT, in issuing these notifications, plainly exceeded its jurisdiction as a subordinate legislation. The parent Act, 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 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, 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. 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, 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 which the notifications were issued, only empowered the Central Government to extend time limits for actions and compliances. Issuing an explanation that provided a clarification that effectively changed the basis of statutory provisions, by stating that pre-amendment provisions of Section 148 would apply, exceeded the scope of the delegated power. Subordinate legislation cannot travel beyond the powers vested by the parent Act and cannot amend the parent Act. The Court explicitly disagreed with the view that these notifications deferred the substitution of reassessment provisions under the Finance Act, 2021, and stated that the amendments came into effect on April 1, 2021. Consequently, the notices impugned in the writ petitions were quashed and set aside.

The High Court held that the explanations introduced by the CBDT notifications dated 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 authorized only to extend time limits by issuing notifications. Issuing an explanation that touched upon the provisions of the Income Tax Act, particularly by altering the basis of statutory provisions, was beyond the scope of this delegated power. The Court found that the subordinate legislation (CBDT notifications) had travelled beyond the powers vested in it by the parent Act. The Court disagreed with the Chhattisgarh High Court's view, stating that the substitution of reassessment provisions under the Finance Act, 2021, could not have been deferred by these notifications, and the amendments effectively came into force on April 1, 2021. Consequently, the notices impugned in the writ petitions were declared invalid and quashed. The Court noted that it was not expressly leaving any issue undecided.

The High Court held that the notices impugned in the respective petitions are invalid and bad in law, and are therefore quashed and set aside. The Court found that the CBDT, by issuing notifications dated 31.03.2021 and 27.04.2021 and introducing an explanation that allowed the application of Section 148 as it stood before the commencement of the Finance Act, 2021, plainly exceeded its jurisdiction as a subordinate legislation. The Court reasoned that the subordinate legislation could not travel beyond the powers vested in the Government of India by the parent Act (Relaxation Act, 2020). The Court also held that an explanation, even if described as clarificatory, cannot change the very basis of statutory provisions or amend the parent Act if the plain meaning of the statutory provision is clear. The Court disagreed with the view taken by the Chhattisgarh High Court in Palak Khatuja (supra), 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. The Court declared the explanations in the notifications as unconstitutional and invalid. All writ petitions were allowed.

The High Court held that the explanations introduced by the CBDT notifications dated 31.03.2021 and 27.04.2021 were unconstitutional and invalid. The Court reasoned that the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, only empowered the Central Government to extend time limits, not to issue explanations that altered the provisions of the Income Tax Act. Introducing such an explanation by way of clarification was deemed to be an act exceeding the delegated jurisdiction of the subordinate legislation. The Court found it doubtful that an explanation could change the basis of statutory provisions if their 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, was not deferred by the CBDT notifications. Consequently, the notices impugned in the respective petitions were declared invalid and quashed. The Court noted that two Division Benches of the Allahabad and Delhi High Courts, as well as learned Single Judges of the Calcutta and Rajasthan High Courts, had taken a similar view.

The High Court held that the explanation introduced by the CBDT in its notifications dated March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, was unconstitutional and invalid. The Court reasoned that the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, specifically Section 3(1), only granted the Central Government the power to extend time limits for actions and compliances. Issuing an explanation that provided a clarification on the applicability of statutory provisions, especially when it appeared to alter the basis of those provisions, was beyond the scope of this delegated power. The Court found that the subordinate legislation (the CBDT notifications) had travelled beyond the powers vested in it by the parent Act. The Court also noted that if the plain meaning of a statutory provision is clear, a subordinate legislature cannot amend it through an explanation, even if termed clarificatory. The Court disagreed with the view that the notifications deferred the substitution of reassessment provisions under the Finance Act, 2021. Consequently, the notices impugned in the writ petitions were declared invalid and 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 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, particularly concerning the reassessment procedures introduced by the Finance Act, 2021. The Court found it doubtful that an explanation, even if termed clarificatory, could change the plain meaning of statutory provisions. The High Court disagreed with the Chhattisgarh High Court's view 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 the CBDT notifications. 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, which provided that the provisions of Section 148, 149, and 151 as they stood 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 and did not grant the power to issue explanations that altered the basis of statutory provisions. Issuing such an explanation by way of clarification was found to be an act of exceeding jurisdiction by a subordinate legislation, as it went beyond the powers vested by 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, could not be deferred by these 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. Issuing an explanation that touched upon the provisions of the Income Tax Act, particularly regarding the application of Section 148, was beyond the scope of this delegated power. The subordinate legislation (notifications) could not travel beyond the powers vested in it by the parent Act. The Court found it doubtful that an explanation, even if termed clarificatory, could change the plain meaning of a statutory provision or amend the parent Act. The Court respectfully disagreed with the Chhattisgarh High Court's view in Palak Khatuja, stating that the CBDT notifications did not defer the substitution of reassessment provisions framed under the Finance Act, 2021, and the amendments came into effect on April 1, 2021. Consequently, the notices impugned in the petitions were declared invalid and quashed.

The High Court held that the explanations introduced by the CBDT notifications dated 31.03.2021 and 27.04.2021 were unconstitutional and invalid. The Court reasoned that the power vested in the Central Government under Section 3(1) of the Relaxation Act, 2020, was limited to extending time limits for action and compliances, and did not include the power to issue explanations that touched upon the provisions of the Income Tax Act or effectively amended them. The Court found that the subordinate legislation (CBDT notifications) had travelled beyond the powers vested in it by the parent Act. The Court disagreed with the view that the notifications deferred the substitution of reassessment provisions framed under the Finance Act, 2021, stating that the amendments' effective date remained 01.04.2021. Consequently, the notices impugned in the writ petitions were declared invalid and bad in law, and were quashed and set aside. The Court noted that while a Single Judge of the Chhattisgarh High Court had taken a different view, it was unable to persuade itself to accept that analysis.

The High Court 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. The CBDT, in introducing an explanation that provided for the application of pre-amended Section 148 provisions, plainly exceeded its jurisdiction as a subordinate legislation. The subordinate legislation could not travel beyond the powers vested by the parent Act, and an explanation cannot amend the provisions of the parent Act. The Court disagreed with the view that the notifications deferred the substitution of reassessment provisions under the Finance Act, 2021, stating that the date of amendments coming into effect remained April 1, 2021. Consequently, the notices impugned in the respective petitions were declared invalid and bad in law, and were quashed and set aside. The Court found no error in the learned Single Judge's decision to quash these notices.

The High Court held that the explanations introduced by the CBDT notifications dated March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, were unconstitutional and invalid. The Court reasoned that the Relaxation Act, 2020, under which these notifications were issued, only empowered the Central Government to extend time limits for actions and compliances. Issuing an explanation that altered the application of statutory provisions, particularly by reviving old provisions after their repeal and before the commencement of new ones, exceeded the scope of the 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 a purported clarification. The Court disagreed with the Chhattisgarh High Court's view, stating that the substitution of reassessment provisions under the Finance Act, 2021, was not deferred by these notifications, and the amendments came into effect from April 1, 2021. Consequently, the notices impugned in the writ petitions were declared invalid and quashed. The 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 these notifications were issued, only granted the power to extend time limits for compliances. The CBDT, in issuing these notifications, plainly exceeded its jurisdiction as a subordinate legislation by introducing an explanation that provided a clarification altering the statutory provisions concerning the issuance of notice under Section 148. The Court emphasized that subordinate legislation cannot travel beyond the powers vested in it by the parent Act and cannot amend the provisions of the parent Act under the guise of a clarification. 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 these notifications, and the amendments came into effect on 01.04.2021. Consequently, the impugned notices were quashed and set aside.

The High Court held that the explanations introduced by the CBDT notifications dated 31.03.2021 and 27.04.2021 were unconstitutional and invalid. The Court reasoned that the CBDT, as a subordinate legislation, had exceeded its jurisdiction by introducing an explanation that sought to clarify or modify the application of statutory provisions beyond the scope of the powers granted by the parent Act, the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020. The Court found that the parent Act only authorized the extension of time limits and did not empower the CBDT to issue explanations that effectively altered the substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, or deferred the commencement of new sections. The Court disagreed with the view that the notifications insulated the old Section 148 and deferred the new provisions, stating that the amendments under the Finance Act, 2021, came into effect on 01.04.2021. 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 notices impugned in the respective petitions are invalid and bad in law, and therefore, quashed and set aside. The Court reasoned that the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, empowered the Central Government to extend time limits for compliances but did not authorize the CBDT to issue explanations that altered the basis of statutory provisions. The explanations introduced by the CBDT notifications dated March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, which sought to clarify that the old Section 148 provisions would apply for the purpose of issuing notices under Section 148 as per the time limits in Section 149 or 151, were found to be beyond the scope of the delegated power. The Court found that these explanations, in the guise of clarification, attempted to amend the parent Act, which is impermissible for subordinate legislation. The Court disagreed with the view of the Chhattisgarh High Court that the notifications deferred the substitution of reassessment provisions. The ratio decidendi is that subordinate legislation cannot travel beyond the powers vested by the parent Act, and an explanation cannot amend the provisions of the parent Act if the plain meaning is clear. All writ petitions were allowed.

The High Court held that the explanations introduced by the CBDT in its notifications dated 31.03.2021 and 27.04.2021 were unconstitutional and invalid. The Court reasoned that the power vested in the Central Government under Section 3(1) of the Relaxation Act, 2020, was solely to extend time limits for actions and compliances. Introducing an explanation that dictated the application of pre-amended provisions of the Income Tax Act, particularly concerning Section 148, went beyond the scope of this delegated power. The Court found that this subordinate legislation exceeded its jurisdiction by attempting to alter the basis of statutory provisions, which cannot be done through an explanation disguised as 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, 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.

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 a clarification contrary to the plain meaning and interpretation of the statutory provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court found it doubtful that an explanation, even in the guise of clarification, could change the fundamental basis of statutory provisions. The Court disagreed with the view 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, was not deferred and that the amendments came into effect on April 1, 2021. 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 notices impugned in the writ petitions were 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 only to extend time limits for compliances, not 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, which stated that for the purpose 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, 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 or amend the parent Act. The Court disagreed with the view taken by the Chhattisgarh High Court in Palak Khatuja, which held the notices to be valid. The Court concluded that the substitution of reassessment provisions under the Finance Act, 2021, came into effect on April 1, 2021, and could not be deferred by the CBDT notifications. Therefore, all the writ petitions were allowed, and the appeals of the revenue were dismissed.

The High Court held that the explanations introduced by the CBDT notifications dated March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, were unconstitutional and invalid. The Court reasoned that the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, under Section 3(1), only empowered the Central Government to extend time limits for compliances by issuing notifications. It did not grant the power to issue explanations that touched upon the provisions of the Income Tax Act itself. The CBDT, by introducing an explanation that dictated the applicability of Section 148 provisions as they stood before the Finance Act, 2021, plainly exceeded its jurisdiction as a subordinate legislation. The subordinate legislation could not travel beyond the powers vested by the parent Act. Furthermore, the Court found it doubtful that an explanation, even in the guise of clarification, could alter the plain meaning of statutory provisions or amend the parent Act. The Court explicitly disagreed with the view taken by the Chhattisgarh High Court in Palak Khatuja, 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 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 inserted by the CBDT notifications dated March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, were unconstitutional and invalid. The Court reasoned that the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, specifically Section 3(1), only empowered the Central Government to extend time limits for actions and compliances. The introduction of an explanation that provided a clarification on the applicability of Section 148 provisions, effectively altering the basis of statutory provisions, went beyond the scope of the delegated power. The Court found that the subordinate legislation (the notifications) 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 noted that while a Single Judge of the Chhattisgarh High Court had taken a different view, it was unable to persuade itself to accept that analysis. Consequently, the notices impugned in the 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 introduced by the CBDT notifications dated 31.03.2021 and 27.04.2021 were unconstitutional and invalid. The Court reasoned that the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, under Section 3(1), only granted the power to extend time limits for action and compliance, not to issue explanations that sought to clarify or alter the substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. The CBDT, as a delegatee, exceeded its jurisdiction by introducing an explanation that provided a clarification which, in effect, changed the basis of statutory provisions. The Court found that the subordinate legislation could not travel beyond the powers vested in it by the parent Act. The Court disagreed with the view that the notifications deferred the substitution of reassessment provisions under the Finance Act, 2021, stating that the date of amendments coming into effect remained 01.04.2021. Consequently, the notices impugned in the respective petitions were declared invalid and bad in law and were quashed and set aside. The Court allowed all the writ petitions and dismissed the appeals of the revenue. No issue was expressly left undecided.

The High Court held that the explanations introduced by the CBDT notifications dated March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, were unconstitutional and invalid. The Court reasoned that the Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, only empowered the Central Government to extend time limits for compliances, not to issue explanations that altered the application of statutory provisions. The CBDT, as a subordinate legislation, had exceeded its jurisdiction by introducing these explanations, which effectively sought to amend the provisions of the Income Tax Act. The Court found it doubtful that an explanation, even if termed clarificatory, could change the plain meaning of a statutory provision. The Court disagreed with the view taken by the Chhattisgarh High Court in Palak Khatuja (supra), finding 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 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 legislative body, exceeded its jurisdiction by introducing an explanation that effectively sought to apply pre-amended 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 the notifications deferred the substitution of reassessment provisions under the Finance Act, 2021. Consequently, the notices impugned in the writ petitions were declared invalid and 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 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, in introducing these explanations, plainly exceeded its jurisdiction as a subordinate legislation, as it travelled beyond the powers vested by the parent Act. The Court also noted that a clarificatory explanation cannot change the plain meaning of a statutory provision. The Court disagreed with the view of the Chhattisgarh High Court in Palak Khatuja (supra), which held that the notices were valid because the application of Section 148 was deferred. The High Court concluded that the notices impugned in the writ petitions were invalid and bad in law. Accordingly, the notices were quashed and set aside. All writ petitions were allowed, and the appeals of the revenue were dismissed.

The High Court held that the explanations introduced by the CBDT in the 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 an explanation that effectively sought to amend the provisions of the Income Tax Act. The power vested in the government under Section 3(1) of the Relaxation Act, 2020, was limited to extending time limits, not to issuing explanations that altered the basis of statutory provisions. The Court found that the subordinate legislation could not travel beyond the powers granted by the parent Act. The High Court disagreed with the view of the Chhattisgarh High Court, stating that the substitution of reassessment provisions under the Finance Act, 2021, could not have been deferred by these notifications, and the amendments came into effect from 01.04.2021. Consequently, the impugned notices issued under Section 148 were declared invalid and quashed. All writ petitions were allowed.

The High Court held that the explanations introduced by the CBDT notifications dated 31.03.2021 and 27.04.2021 were unconstitutional and invalid. The Court reasoned that the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, under which the notifications were issued, only empowered the Central Government to extend time limits for compliances. Introducing an explanation that clarified that older provisions of Section 148 would apply, effectively circumvented the amendments brought by the Finance Act, 2021. This went beyond the scope of delegated power, as subordinate legislation cannot travel beyond the powers vested by the parent Act. The Court found that the subordinate legislation could not 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), finding that the substitution of reassessment provisions under the Finance Act, 2021, were not deferred by the notifications. 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 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 substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. The CBDT, as a delegatee of this power, plainly exceeded its jurisdiction by introducing an explanation that provided for the application of pre-amendment provisions of Section 148, thereby attempting to amend the parent Act through subordinate legislation. 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 due to the deferral of the amended provisions. 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 declared invalid and quashed. The appeals of the revenue were dismissed.

The High Court held that the explanations introduced by the CBDT notifications dated 31.03.2021 and 27.04.2021 were unconstitutional and invalid. The Court reasoned that under Section 3(1) of the Relaxation Act, 2020, the Central Government was empowered only to extend time limits for 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 these explanations, which attempted to change the basis of statutory provisions without legislative authority. The Court found it doubtful that an explanation, even if described as 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 notifications deferred the application of amended Section 148. The High Court concluded that the notices impugned in the petitions were invalid and bad in law. Accordingly, all the writ petitions were allowed, and the notices 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 Relaxation Act, 2020, under Section 3(1), only empowered the Central Government to extend time limits for actions and compliances, not to issue explanations that altered the substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. The Court found that the CBDT, as a subordinate legislation, had exceeded its jurisdiction by introducing an explanation that effectively sought to apply the pre-amendment Section 148, thereby attempting to amend the parent Act. The Court distinguished this from merely extending time limits. The ratio decidendi is that subordinate legislation cannot travel beyond the powers vested in it by the parent Act and cannot amend statutory provisions under the guise of clarification. Consequently, the notices issued under Section 148 based on these invalid explanations were quashed and set aside. The Court noted that while a single judge of the Chhattisgarh High Court had taken a different view, it respectfully disagreed with 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, particularly the explanation introduced therein, were unconstitutional and invalid. The Court reasoned that the power granted under Section 3(1) of the Relaxation Act, 2020, was limited to extending time limits for actions and compliances, and did not include the power to issue explanations that altered the substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. The Court found that the CBDT, as a subordinate legislation, had exceeded its jurisdiction by introducing an explanation that sought to change the basis of statutory provisions. The Court disagreed with the view that the notifications deferred the applicability of the amended reassessment provisions, stating that the amendments coming into effect on 01.04.2021 could not be deferred by such notifications. Consequently, the notices impugned in the petitions were quashed and set aside. The Court allowed all the writ petitions and dismissed the appeals of the revenue.

The High Court held that the 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, specifically Section 3(1), only granted the power to extend time limits for actions and compliances, not to issue explanations that altered the substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. The CBDT, in introducing an explanation that provided for the application of the pre-amended Section 148, Section 149, and Section 151, plainly exceeded its jurisdiction as a subordinate legislation. The subordinate legislation could not travel beyond the powers vested by the parent Act. The Court also noted that an explanation, even if termed clarificatory, cannot amend the provisions of the parent Act if the plain meaning of the statutory provision is clear. The Court disagreed with the view taken by the Chhattisgarh High Court in Palak Khatuja (supra), finding that the 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 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 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, had exceeded its jurisdiction by introducing an explanation that effectively allowed the issuance of Section 148 notices without complying with the mandatory pre-assessment inquiry required by the newly inserted Section 148A. The Court found that such an explanation could not amend the parent Act and that the plain meaning of the statutory provisions was clear. The Court disagreed with the view taken by the Chhattisgarh High Court in Palak Khatuja (supra), which held the notices to be valid. Consequently, the notices impugned in the respective petitions were quashed and set aside. The Court noted that the amendments introduced by the Finance Act, 2021, came into effect on April 1, 2021, and could not be deferred by the CBDT notifications.

The High Court held that the notifications dated March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, issued by the CBDT, were unconstitutional and invalid. The Court reasoned that the Relaxation Act, 2020, under 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 introduction of an explanation by the CBDT, stating that the provisions as they stood on March 31, 2021, would apply for Section 148 notices, was found to be an overreach of its delegated power as a subordinate legislation. Such an explanation could not amend the provisions of the parent Act or change the commencement date of the amendments brought by the Finance Act, 2021. The Court disagreed with the view taken by the Chhattisgarh High Court in Palak Khatuja (supra), stating that the substitution of reassessment provisions under the Finance Act, 2021, were not deferred by the notifications. Consequently, the notices impugned in the writ 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 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 by issuing notifications. Issuing an explanation that touched upon the provisions of the Income Tax Act, particularly regarding the applicability of Section 148 and Section 149/151, was beyond the scope of the delegated power. The Court found that the subordinate legislation had exceeded its jurisdiction by attempting to clarify or effectively amend the parent Act's provisions through an explanation. 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 respective petitions were found to be 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, and two learned Single Judges of the Calcutta and Rajasthan High Courts had followed this trend.

The High Court held that the notifications dated March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, issued by the CBDT, which introduced an explanation stating that for the purposes of Section 148 notices, the provisions as they stood on March 31, 2021, 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 as delegated by the parent Act. The power granted was to extend time limits, not 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 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 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 declared invalid and bad in law and were quashed and set aside. All writ petitions were allowed, and appeals of the revenue were dismissed.

The High Court held that the explanations introduced by the CBDT notifications dated March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, were unconstitutional and invalid. The Court reasoned that under Section 3(1) of the Relaxation Act, 2020, the Central Government was empowered only to extend time limits for actions and compliances, not to issue explanations that altered the application of statutory provisions. The CBDT, as a subordinate legislation, exceeded its jurisdiction by introducing an explanation that effectively sought to apply the pre-amended provisions of Section 148 and Section 149 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, thereby attempting to amend the parent Act. The Court found this to be beyond the scope of the delegated power. The High Court disagreed with the view taken by the Chhattisgarh High Court in Palak Khatuja (supra), which held that the notices were valid because the notifications deferred the application of the amended Section 148. The Rajasthan High Court concluded that the substitution of reassessment provisions by the Finance Act, 2021, with effect from April 1, 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. All writ petitions were allowed.