Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India

5 SCC 536Reported decision1997#1229 most cited

What is Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India authority for?

Tax can only be levied or collected by authority of law, as mandated by Article 265 of the Constitution; consequently, any tax collected contrary to law must be refunded.

93

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2001 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Mafatlal Industries v. Union of India · 5 SCC 536 · Article 265 · no tax without authority of law · refund of tax · tax collected contrary to law · Section 139 · Section 147 · Section 153A · assessment procedure · Constitutional Bench

Sections most often in play

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 2(24)(xviii)Section 132(4)Section 153C

Issues it is cited on

section 11bsection 2(24)(xviii)section 2(45)section 158bb(1)section 158bbpanchnamasection 10(38)section 2(24)section 153a(1)section 132(1)section 158bsection 158

Judgments citing Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India

GANESH POLYCHEM LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC-3(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2145/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Parekh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 250

…nal principles, particularly Article 265 which mandates that no tax shall be calculated except by authority of law. He strongly relied upon the judgment of Constitutional Bench of nine Benches of the Hon’ble Supreme Court Mafatlal Industries versus UOI (1997) 5 SCC 536 (2002-TIOL-54-SC- CX) interpreted the Article 265 of the Constitution and laid down the legal principles to be followed thenceforth and which is still binding in the Country on all Courts including the Apex Court as has not been overruled. “The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held therein that Article 265 mandates that no tax can be levied or collected e…

LESHARK GLOBAL LLP ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals for A

ITA 3183/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2018-19
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 56Section 69

…rinciples, particularly\nArticle 265 which mandates that no tax shall be calculated\nexcept by authority of law. He strongly relied upon the\njudgment of Constitutional Bench of Nine Benches of the\nHon'ble Supreme Court Mafatlal Industries versus UOI\n(1997) 5 SCC 536 (2002-TIOL-54-SC-CX) interpreted the\nArticle 265 of the Constitution and laid down the legal\nprinciples to be followed thenceforth and which is still binding\nin the Country on all Courts including the Apex Court as has\nnot been overruled.\n\n“The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held therein, that Article 265\nmandates that no tax can be levied or col…

LESHARK GLOBAL LLP ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals for A

ITA 3182/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 56Section 69

…rinciples, particularly\nArticle 265 which mandates that no tax shall be calculated\nexcept by authority of law. He strongly relied upon the\njudgment of Constitutional Bench of Nine Benches of the\nHon'ble Supreme Court Mafatlal Industries versus UOI\n(1997) 5 SCC 536 (2002-TIOL-54-SC-CX) interpreted the\nArticle 265 of the Constitution and laid down the legal\nprinciples to be followed thenceforth and which is still binding\nin the Country on all Courts including the Apex Court as has\nnot been overruled.\n\n32. The Supreme Court visualized several hypothetical\nsituations and categorically held as:-\n\n“22. Th…

LESHARK GLOBAL LLP ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals for A

ITA 3181/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2016-17
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 56Section 69

…rinciples, particularly\nArticle 265 which mandates that no tax shall be calculated\nexcept by authority of law. He strongly relied upon the\njudgment of Constitutional Bench of Nine Benches of the\nHon'ble Supreme Court Mafatlal Industries versus UOI\n(1997) 5 SCC 536 (2002-TIOL-54-SC-CX) interpreted the\nArticle 265 of the Constitution and laid down the legal\nprinciples to be followed thenceforth and which is still binding\nin the Country on all Courts including the Apex Court as has\nnot been overruled.\n32. The Supreme Court visualized several hypothetical\nsituations and categorically held as:\n“22. There i…

LESHARK GLOBAL LLP ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals for A

ITA 3180/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 56Section 69

…nal principles, particularly Article 265 which mandates that no tax shall be calculated except by authority of law. He strongly relied upon the judgment of Constitutional Bench of nine Benches of the Hon’ble Supreme Court Mafatlal Industries versus UOI (1997) 5 SCC 536 (2002-TIOL-54-SC-CX) interpreted the Article 265 of the Constitution and laid down the legal principles to be followed thenceforth and which is still binding in the Country on all Courts including the Apex Court as has not been overruled. “The Hon‟ble Supreme Court has held therein that Article 265 mandates that no tax can be levied or collected ex…

LESHARK GLOBAL LLP ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals for A

ITA 3179/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2014-15
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 56Section 69

…rinciples, particularly\nArticle 265 which mandates that no tax shall be calculated\nexcept by authority of law. He strongly relied upon the\njudgment of Constitutional Bench of Nine Benches of the\nHon'ble Supreme Court Mafatlal Industries versus UOI\n(1997) 5 SCC 536 (2002-TIOL-54-SC-CX) interpreted the\nArticle 265 of the Constitution and laid down the legal\nprinciples to be followed thenceforth and which is still binding\nin the Country on all Courts including the Apex Court as has\nnot been overruled.\n\n32. The Supreme Court visualized several hypothetical\nsituations and categorically held as:\n\n“22. The…

LESHARK GLOBAL LLP ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals for A

ITA 3178/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 56Section 69

…nal principles, particularly Article 265 which mandates that no tax shall be calculated except by authority of law. He strongly relied upon the judgment of Constitutional Bench of nine Benches of the Hon’ble Supreme Court Mafatlal Industries versus UOI (1997) 5 SCC 536 (2002-TIOL-54-SC-CX) interpreted the Article 265 of the Constitution and laid down the legal principles to be followed thenceforth and which is still binding in the Country on all Courts including the Apex Court as has not been overruled. “The Hon‟ble Supreme Court has held therein that Article 265 mandates that no tax can be levied or collected ex…

LESHARK GLOBAL LLP ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals for A

ITA 3177/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2012-13
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 56Section 69

…nal principles, particularly Article 265 which mandates that no tax shall be calculated except by authority of law. He strongly relied upon the judgment of Constitutional Bench of Nine Benches of the Hon'ble Supreme Court Mafatlal Industries versus UOI (1997) 5 SCC 536 (2002-TIOL-54-SC-CX) interpreted the Article 265 of the Constitution and laid down the legal principles to be followed thenceforth and which is still binding in the Country on all Courts including the Apex Court as has not been overruled.\n\n“The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held therein, that Article 265 mandates that no tax can be levied or collecte…

COMMISSIONER OF GST AND CENTRAL EXCISE vs. M/S CITIBANK N.A

C.A. No.-008228 - 2019Supreme Court09 Dec 2021

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH

Section 35L(1)(b)Section 64(3)Section 65Section 65(10)Section 65(105)Section 65(12)Section 65(7)Section 83

…REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 8228 OF 2019 COMMISSIONER OF GST AND CENTRAL EXCISE ... APPELLANT(S) VERSUS M/S CITI BANK N.A. ... RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.89 OF 2021 J U D G M E N T K.M. JOSEPH, J. 1. These Appeals are maintained under Section 35L(1)(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, read with Section 83 of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994. They are directed against the Orders dated 16.11.2018 and 20.11.2019, passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Chennai (hereinafte…

JAY PEE CEMENT CORPORATION LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS vs. THE GULBARGA ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CO. LTD. ORS

WP/84166/2011HC Karnataka27 Jan 2021

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice E.S. Indiresh

…held to be equally applicable to enforcement of rights, and has 108 been followed by this Court throughout. The High Court was therefore justified in dismissing the writ petitions in limine.” 14. In Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, (1997) 5 SCC 536 B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J. (speaking for the majority of the larger Bench) observed: “77. … So far as the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 or for that matter, the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 is concerned, it is obvious that the provisions of the Act cannot bar and curtail these remedies. It is, however, equally obv…

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), NEW DELHI vs. ANANT RAJ LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed partly as indicated above

ITA 5238/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Goel, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, CA; Ms
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50

…to be refunded to the person from whom or on whose behalf it had been collected. Reliance was placed on the undernoted authorities: a) The Constitutional Bench decision of 9 Judges of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mafatlal Industries versus Union of India, (1997) 5 SCC 536 / (2002-TIOL-54-SC- CX) b) CIT Vs Shelly Products [2003] 261 ITR 367 (SC) c) R. Seshammal Vs ITO 237 ITR 185 (Madras) d) Sudhir Sareen v CIT 239 ITR 440 Delhi e) DCIT vs Lab India Instruments (P) Ltd., 93 ITD 120ITAT-PUNE f) Lustre Tiles Ltd. Vs ACIT 2007-TIOL-132-ITAT-JAIPUR g) Smt. Sneh Lata Jain v CIT [2004] 140 Taxman 156 J&K High Court 31 I.…

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), NEW DELHI vs. ANANT RAJ LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed partly as indicated above

ITA 5237/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Goel, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, CA; Ms
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50

…to be refunded to the person from whom or on whose behalf it had been collected. Reliance was placed on the undernoted authorities: a) The Constitutional Bench decision of 9 Judges of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mafatlal Industries versus Union of India, (1997) 5 SCC 536 / (2002-TIOL-54-SC- CX) b) CIT Vs Shelly Products [2003] 261 ITR 367 (SC) c) R. Seshammal Vs ITO 237 ITR 185 (Madras) d) Sudhir Sareen v CIT 239 ITR 440 Delhi e) DCIT vs Lab India Instruments (P) Ltd., 93 ITD 120ITAT-PUNE f) Lustre Tiles Ltd. Vs ACIT 2007-TIOL-132-ITAT-JAIPUR g) Smt. Sneh Lata Jain v CIT [2004] 140 Taxman 156 J&K High Court 31 I.…

ANANT RAJ LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed partly as indicated above

ITA 4736/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Goel, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, CA; Ms
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50

…to be refunded to the person from whom or on whose behalf it had been collected. Reliance was placed on the undernoted authorities: a) The Constitutional Bench decision of 9 Judges of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mafatlal Industries versus Union of India, (1997) 5 SCC 536 / (2002-TIOL-54-SC- CX) b) CIT Vs Shelly Products [2003] 261 ITR 367 (SC) c) R. Seshammal Vs ITO 237 ITR 185 (Madras) d) Sudhir Sareen v CIT 239 ITR 440 Delhi e) DCIT vs Lab India Instruments (P) Ltd., 93 ITD 120ITAT-PUNE f) Lustre Tiles Ltd. Vs ACIT 2007-TIOL-132-ITAT-JAIPUR g) Smt. Sneh Lata Jain v CIT [2004] 140 Taxman 156 J&K High Court 31 I.…

M/S CONTINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE COMPONENTS (INDIA) PVT. LTD vs. C.C.C.E & S.T. BANGALORE

CEA/35/2018HC Karnataka05 May 2020

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,E.S.INDIRESH

Section 11BSection 35G

…extended period of one year on the subsequent amendment to Section 11-B. 12. The effect of Section 11-B, and in particular, applications for rebate being made within time, has been laid down in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India [(1997) 5 SCC 536] , thus: (SCC pp. 631-32, para 108) “108. The discussion in the judgment yields the following propositions. We may forewarn that these propositions are set out merely for the sake of convenient reference and are not supposed to be exhaustive. In case of any doubt or 28 ambiguity in these propositions, reference must be…

THE ITO (TDS), KOTTAYAM vs. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, KOTTAYAM

ITA 556/COCH/2018[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2019AY 2017-18

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 10Section 10(10)(iii)Section 192Section 201Section 201(1)

…and held that the provision to be neither discretionary nor arbitrary. The Assessing 5 I.T.A. Nos.555&556/Coch/2018 & C.O. Nos. 01&09/Coch/2019 Officer relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries Vs Union of India (1997) 5 SCC 536 that the legislature can make reasonable discrimination and make a choice in respect of districts, objects, persons, methods and even rates of taxation. 3.3 The Assessing Officer was of the view that when there is specific provision & separate treatment provided for in the Income Tax Act to tax the retirement benefits of the University employe…

THE ITO (TDS), KOTTAYAM vs. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, KOTTAYAM

ITA 555/COCH/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2019AY 2016-17

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 10Section 10(10)(iii)Section 192Section 201Section 201(1)

…and held that the provision to be neither discretionary nor arbitrary. The Assessing 5 I.T.A. Nos.555&556/Coch/2018 & C.O. Nos. 01&09/Coch/2019 Officer relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries Vs Union of India (1997) 5 SCC 536 that the legislature can make reasonable discrimination and make a choice in respect of districts, objects, persons, methods and even rates of taxation. 3.3 The Assessing Officer was of the view that when there is specific provision & separate treatment provided for in the Income Tax Act to tax the retirement benefits of the University employe…

SRI. BHEEMAPPA GURAPPA HEBBALLI vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Appeal is dismissed as

WA/100186/2018HC Karnataka06 Sept 2018

Bench: HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR,G.NARENDAR

Section 4Section 49Section 95

…been held to be equally applicable to enforcement of rights, and has been followed by this Court throughout. The High Court was therefore justified in dismissing the writ petitions in limine.” 14. In Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, (1997) 5 SCC 536 B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J. (speaking for the majority of the larger Bench) observed: (SCC p. 607, para 77) “77. … So far as the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226—or for that matter, the jurisdiction of : 11 : this Court under Article 32—is concerned, it is obvious that the provisions of the Act cannot bar and curtail…

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 vs. M/s Devi Sea Foods Ltd.,

ITTA/521/2017HC Telangana11 Sept 2017

…ion under Article 226 of the Constitution the machinery created under the statute to be bypassed, and will leave the party applying to it to seek resort to the machinery so set up.” The Supreme Court in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. vs. UOI- (1997) 5 SCC 536 has held as under: (23 of 29) [SAW-491/2017] “77. … So far as the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 or for that matter, the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 is concerned, it is obvious that the provisions of the Act cannot bar and curtail these remedies. It is, however, equally obvious that…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income -Tax-6 vs. M/s. B.Surendra Chowdary

ITTA/519/2017HC Telangana21 Aug 2017

…ion under Article 226 of the Constitution the machinery created under the statute to be bypassed, and will leave the party applying to it to seek resort to the machinery so set up.” The Supreme Court in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. vs. UOI- (1997) 5 SCC 536 has held as under: (23 of 29) [SAW-491/2017] “77. … So far as the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 or for that matter, the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 is concerned, it is obvious that the provisions of the Act cannot bar and curtail these remedies. It is, however, equally obvious that…

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. K.V.Ram Kumar

ITTA/494/2017HC Telangana03 Aug 2017

…ion under Article 226 of the Constitution the machinery created under the statute to be bypassed, and will leave the party applying to it to seek resort to the machinery so set up.” The Supreme Court in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. vs. UOI- (1997) 5 SCC 536 has held as under: (23 of 29) [SAW-491/2017] “77. … So far as the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 or for that matter, the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 is concerned, it is obvious that the provisions of the Act cannot bar and curtail these remedies. It is, however, equally obvious that…

Showing 1–20 of 93 · Page 1 of 5