TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 1212X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed at that time on account of being beyond the time limit specified under the provisions of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 149 as they stood immediately before the commencement of the Finance Act, 2021. As per this proviso thus no notice under Section 148 would be issued for the past assessment years by resorting to the larger period of limitation prescribed in newly substituted clause (b) of Section 149(1). This would indicate that the notice that would be issued after 01.04.2021 would be in terms of the substituted Section 149(1) but without breaching the upper time limit provided in the original Section 149(1) which stood substituted. This aspect has also been highlighted in the memorandum explaining the proposed provisions in the Finance Bill. If according to the revenue for past period provisions of section 149 before amendment were applicable, this first proviso to section 149(1) was wholly unnecessary. Looked from both angles, namely, no indication of surviving the past provisions after the substitution and in fact an active indication to the contrary, inescapable conclusion that we must arrive at is that for any action of issuance of notice under Section 148 af ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Relaxation Act, 2020 the Government of India was authorized to extend the time limits by issuing notifications in this regard. Issuing any explanation touching the provisions of the Income Tax Act was not part of this delegation at all. The CBDT while issuing the notifications dated 31.03.2021 and 27.04.2021 when introduced an explanation which provided by way of clarification that for the purposes of issuance of notice under Section 148 as per the time limits specified in Section 149 or 151, the provisions as they stood as on 31.03.2021 before commencement of the Finance Act, 2021 shall apply, plainly exceeded its jurisdiction as a subordinate legislation. The subordinate legislation could not have travelled beyond the powers vested in the Government of India by the parent Act. Even otherwise it is extremely doubtful whether the explanation in the guise of clarification can change the very basis of the statutory provisions. If the plain meaning of the statutory provision and its interpretation is clear, by adopting a position different in an explanation and describing it to be clarificatory, the subordinate legislature cannot be permitted t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3471, 14142, 14143, 17116, 17519, 17520, 10601 and 18034 of 2021 and 969, 181, 301, 419, 508, 527, 561, 575, 590, 595, 597, 600, 611, 627, 651, 685, 888, 909, 918, 953, 996, 5, 76, 180, 182, 183, 212, 230, 239, 275, 306, 307, 308, 309, 310, 325, 327, 328, 338, 369, 389, 390, 417, 427, 428, 432, 433, 441, 442, 455, 456, 458, 499, 503, 506, 509, 510, 517, 520, 525, 539, 541, 557, 560, 570, 571, 574, 582, 583, 607, 610, 612, 614, 621, 622, 623, 624, 625, 628, 649, 654, 655, 657, 658, 664, 666, 669, 673, 674, 675, 683, 684, 691, 693, 694, 695, 699, 701, 731, 743, 759, 767, 770, 809, 816, 819, 836, 855, 896, 908, 920, 921, 922, 925, 930, 954, 955, 957, 974, 976, 978, 1000, 1002, 1003, 1004, 1006, 1007, 1008, 1009, 1011, 1020, 1021, 1023, 1028, 1034, 1048, 1054, 1055, 1056, 1058, 1069, 1121, 1166, 1201, 1202, 1217, 1225, 1241, 1246, 1247 and 1291 of 2022 and D. B. Special Appeal Writ Nos. 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 68, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contend that since the notices are issued after 01.04.2021, the same could be done only as per the provisions contained in the Act effective from 01.04.2021. Since in the present cases the notices are issued under the old provisions which have already been substituted, the notices are invalid. The petitioners have also challenged portions of two notifications issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (for short CBDT ) clarifying that provisions of Sections 148, 149 and 151 of the Act as they stood on 31.03.2021 shall apply for the purpose of issuance of notice under Section 148 for the past period. According to the petitioners, this explanation is beyond the jurisdiction of CBDT. 3. In Special Appeals, the revenue has challenged the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 25.11.2021 in case of BPIP Infra Private Limited Vs. Income Tax Officer (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13297/2021), reported in 2021 (12) TMI 207, in which relying on a decision of Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in case of Ashok Kumar Agarwal Vs. Union of India through its Revenue Secretary North Block And Ors. (Writ Tax Petition No.524/2021), dated 30.09.2021, reported in 2021(10) TMI 517, the lear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. As per Section 147 as it stood prior to substitution by the Finance Act, 2021, if the Assessing Officer had reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment for any assessment year he could subject to the provisions of Sections 148 to 153 of the Act assess or reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which had escaped assessment. As per Section 148 of the Act before making any such assessment, reassessment or recomputation under Section 147 the Assessing Officer has to serve a notice on the assessee requiring him to furnish the return of his income. Sub-section (2) of Section 148 provided that the Assessing Officer shall before issuing any such notice record his reasons for doing so. As per sub-section (1) of Section 149 read with Section 147, in case of scrutiny assessment no notice under Section 148 could be issued beyond a period of four years from the end of relevant assessment year unless the assessee had failed to file the return or income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment for the reason of the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts necessary for assessment and in which case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the order passed if required under clause (d) of Section 148A requiring him to furnish the return within the specified time and in prescribed form. The proviso to Section 148 provides that no notice shall be issued unless there is information with the Assessing Officer which suggests that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment in case of the assessee for the relevant assessment year and the Assessing Officer has obtained prior approval of the specified authority for issuing such notice. Explanation (1) to Section 148 of the Act explains what information with the Assessing Officer which suggests that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment means. Explanation (2) lists the situations where the Assessing Officer shall be deemed to have information which suggests that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. 9. Section 148A is newly inserted and it pertains to conducting enquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice under Section 148 and reads as under:- 148A.-The Assessing Officer shall, before issuing any notice under section 148,- (a) conduct any enquiry, if required, with the prior approval of specified authority, with re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therein, relate to, the assessee. Explanation.-For the purposes of this section, specified authority means the specified authority referred to in section 151. 10. As per this newly introduced provision thus before issuing notice under Section 148, the Assessing Officer may conduct any enquiry if required; with the prior approval of the specified authority with respect to the information which suggests that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. He has to provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee by serving on him a notice to show cause within the specified time which shall not be less than seven days but not exceeding 30 days from the date of issue of notice but which can be extended by him on an application by the assessee. Such notice would be to call upon the assessee why a notice under Section 148 should not be issued on the basis of information which suggests that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. As per clause (c), the Assessing Officer has to consider the reply of the assessee furnished, if any, in response to such notice. As per clause (d), the Assessing Officer would decide on the basis of material available on record i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 148A or the period during which the proceeding under section 148A is stayed by an order or injunction of any court, shall be excluded: Provided also that where immediately after the exclusion of the period referred to in the immediately preceding proviso, the period of limitation available to the Assessing Officer for passing an order under clause (d) of section 148A is less than seven days, such remaining period shall be extended to seven days and the period of limitation under this subsection shall be deemed to be extended accordingly. Explanation.-For the purposes of clause (b) of this sub- section, asset shall include immovable property, being land or building or both, shares and securities, loans and advances, deposits in bank account. (2) The provisions of sub-section (1) as to the issue of notice shall be subject to the provisions of section 151. 12. As per sub-section (1) of Section 149 as it stands now, time limit for issuing notice under Section 148 is three years from the end of relevant assessment year unless the case falls under clause (b) where the period available for issuing such notice is ten years. Clause (b) applies to cases where the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e end of relevant assessment year. Section 147 previously referred to term the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Under proviso to Section 148 as it stands now, no notice for the reassessment would be issued unless there is information with the Assessing Officer which suggests that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. This shift from the Assessing Officer having reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment to the Assessing Officer should have information which suggests that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment would come up for consideration and interpretation in appropriate cases in future. Since we are not directly concerned with this change it is not necessary for us to delve on this issue. 17. The major change which the new regime of reassessment has brought about is introduction of Section 148A of the Act for the first time. As is well known the Supreme Court in case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer, (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC), had introduced a requirement of the Assessing Officer providing reasons recorded for issuing notice for reopening of asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of material available on record and the reply of the assessee, if any filed. The decision has to be taken within the time prescribed. 19. While the Finance Act, 2021 was not yet in horizon, around third week of March, 2020 the country was hit by spread of corona virus which led to nationwide strict lockdowns which put the lives of citizens and even the Government machinery totally out of gear. It became virtually impossible for individuals as well as Government authorities to adhere to several statutory time limits which in many cases were inflexible. To overcome these difficulties in the context of tax collections, the Government first introduced the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation of Certain Provisions), Ordinance, 2020 (hereinafter to be referred as Relaxation Ordinance, 2020 ). The provisions contained in the said Ordinance would apply to specified Acts which were defined in clause (a) of Section 2(1) which included the Income Tax Act, 1961. As per sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Relaxation Ordinance, 2020, any time limit provided in the specified Acts which fell during the period from 20.03.2020 to 29.06.2020 or such other date after 29.06.2020 as the Central Gove ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o as the Income-tax Act) and, - (a) the completion of any action referred to in clause (a) of sub- section (1) of section 3 of the Act relates to passing of an order under sub-section (13) of section 144C or issuance of notice under section 148 as per time-limit specified in section 149 or sanction under section 151 of the Income-tax Act, - (i) the 31st day of March, 2021 shall be the end date of the period during which the time-limit, specified in, or prescribed or notified under, the Income-tax Act falls for the completion of such action; and (ii) the 30th day of April, 2021 shall be the end date to which the time-limit for the completion of such action shall stand extended. Explanation.- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that for the purposes of issuance of notice under section 148 as per time-limit specified in section 149 or sanction under section 151 of the Income-tax Act, under this sub-clause, the provisions of section 148, section 149 and section 151 of the Income-tax Act, as the case may be, as they stood as on the 31st day of March 2021, before the commencement of the Finance Act, 2021, shall apply. (b) the compliance of any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly introduced provisions that the legislature desired to retain the old provisions for the past period. In that view of the matter any action of issuance of notice for reassessment which is taken after 01.04.2021, must be in accordance with the amended provisions. (ii) Insertion of new provisions and substitution of the old would have the effect of repealing the old provisions which would cease to have any applicability thereafter. Our attention was drawn to the speech of the Finance Minister made in the Parliament explaining the proposed provisions for reassessment. Our attention was also drawn to notes on clauses explaining these provisions. It was contended that the speech of the Finance Minister and these notes on clauses leave no manner of doubt that the new provisions for reassessment contained in the Finance Act, 2021 were meant to have effect from 01.04.2021 and that the old provisions would cease to have any existence. (iii) It was contended that the Relaxation Act, 2020 merely authorised the Government to extend the time limits contained in the specified Acts. This did not include power to issue any explanation or clarification. The subordinate legislature must subm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad of corona virus. The CBDT therefore in exercise of powers conferred in sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Relaxation Act, 2020, has issued necessary explanation which merely clarifies which statutory provisions any way provide. This explanation makes explicit what is otherwise implicit under the Act. The same is well within the power of the Government. 25. Two questions of law which arise for our consideration are as under:- (i) Whether after introduction of new provisions for reassessment of income by virtue of the Finance Act, 2021 with effect from 01.04.2021, substituting the then existing provisions, would the substituted provisions survive and could be used for issuing notices for reassessment for the past period? (ii) Whether the explanations contained in the CBDT circulars dated 31.03.2021 and 27.04.2021 are legal and valid? 26. At the outset we may note how other High Courts have viewed this situation. A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in case of Ashok Kumar Agarwal (supra) 2021(10) TMI 517 has ruled in favour of the assessee making following observations:- 64. As to the first line of reasoning applied by the learned counsel for the peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1.04.2021, that proceeding must arise only upon jurisdiction being validly assumed by the assessing authority. Till such time jurisdiction is validly assumed by assessing authority evidenced by issuance of the jurisdictional notice under Section 148, no reassessment proceeding may ever be said to be pending before the assessing authority. The admission of the revenue authorities that all re-assessment notices involved in this batch of writ petitions had been issued after the enforcement date 01.04.2021, is tell-tale and critical. As a fact, no jurisdiction had been assumed by the assessing authority against any of the petitioners, under the unamended law. Hence, no time extension could ever be made under section 3(1) of the Enabling Act, read with the Notifications issued thereunder. 68. The submission of the learned Additional Solicitor General of India that the provision of Section 3(1) of the Enabling Act gave an overriding effect to that Act and therefore saved the provisions as existed under the unamended law, also cannot be accepted. That saving could arise only if jurisdiction had been validly assumed before the date 01.04.2021. In the first place Section 3(1) of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to pre-existing and now substituted provisions of Sections 147 and 148 of the Act has been introduced only by the later Notifications issued under the Act. Therefore, the validity of those provisions is also required to be examined. We have concluded as above, that the provisions of Sections 147, 148, 148A, 149, 150 and 151 substituted the old/preexisting provisions of the Act w.e.f. 01.04.2021. We have further concluded, in absence of any proceeding of reassessment having been initiated prior to the date 01.04.2021, it is the amended law alone that would apply. We do not see how the delegate i.e. Central Government or the CBDT could have issued the Notifications, plainly to over reach the principal legislation. Unless harmonized as above, those Notifications would remain invalid. 73. Unless specifically enabled under any law and unless that burden had been discharged by the respondents, we are unable to accept the further submission advanced by the learned Additional Solicitor General of India that practicality dictates that the reassessment proceedings be protected. Practicality, if any, may lead to legislation. Once the matter reaches Court, it is the legislation and its l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 148 on or after 1st April, 2021 have to comply with the provisions of Sections 147, 148, 148A, 149 and 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as specifically substituted by the Finance Act, 2021 with effect from 1st April, 2021. 46. Upon perusal of Section 3(1) of Relaxation Act, 2020, this Court is of the view that it extends only the time lines. Section 3(1) of the Relaxation Act, 2020 stipulates that where, any time limit has been stipulated in a specified Act which falls between the period 20th day of March, 2020 and 31st day of December, 2020 for the completion or compliance of such action as issuance of any notice under the provisions of the specified Acts and where completion or compliance of such action has not been made within such time, then the time limit for completion or compliance of such action shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the specified Acts, stand extended. It is important to bear in mind that Section 3(1) of the Relaxation Act, 2020 does not empower the Central Government to postpone the applicability of any provision which has been enacted from a particular date. There is a difference between extension of time of an action which is getting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in which the learned Single Judge upheld the validity of the notice of reassessment on the ground that by virtue of notifications dated 31.03.2021 and 27.04.2021 the application of Section 148 of the Act which was originally existing before amendment was deferred, meaning the reassessment mechanism as prevailing prior to 31.03.2021 was saved by the notification. 31. We may now attempt to answer these questions ourselves with the aid of statutory provisions and law laid down in various decisions cited before us we may summarise certain principles applicable in the field of taxation and which principles would be invoked in the course of the judgment:- (i) A taxing statute must be interpreted strictly. Equity has no place in taxation nor while interpreting taxing statute intendment would have any place. In case of State of W.B. Vs. Kesoram Industries Ltd. And Ors., (2004) 10 SCC 201, referring to Article 265 of the Constitution which provides that no tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law, it was observed that in interpreting a taxing statute, equitable considerations are entirely out of place. Taxing statutes cannot be interpreted by any presumption ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ens without authority of law. It is axiomatic that taxation statute has to be interpreted strictly because the State cannot at their whims and fancies burden the citizens without authority of law. In other words, when the competent Legislature mandates taxing certain persons/certain objects in certain circumstances, it cannot be expanded/interpreted to include those, which were not intended by the legislature. (ii) Being the central legislation of pan-India effect and operating in the field of taxation, the view of another High Court would have considerable persuasive value. In other words, the High Court would have due regard to the view already expressed by another High Court and to the possible extent prefer consistency of views across the country over discord. Unless the view expressed by another High Court is plainly unacceptable to the Court, the High Court would lean in favour of the well considered view already expressed by another Court. (iii) The speech made the Finance Minister on the floor of the House explaining the budgetary provisions would provide a useful tool in interpreting the taxing provisions particularly in case the dispute about their interpreta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s enacted. This is in accord with the recent trend in juristic thought not only in Western countries but also in India that interpretation of a statute being an exercise in the ascertainment of meaning, everything which is logically relevant should be admissible. In fact there are at least three decisions of this Court, one in Sole Trustee Loka Shikshana Trust v. CIT: [1975]101 ITR 234, the other in Indian Chamber of Commerce v. CIT: [1975]101 ITR 796 and the third in Additional CIT v. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association [1980] 121 ITR 1/[1980] 2 Taxman 501, where the speech made by the Finance Minister while introducing the exclusionary clause in Section 2 Clause (15) of the Act was relied upon by the Court for the purpose of ascertaining what was the reason for introducing that clause. The speech made by the Finance Minister while moving the amendment introducing Sub-section (2) clearly states what were the circumstances in which Sub-section (2) came to be passed, what was the mischief for which Section 52 as it then stood did not provide and which was sought to be remedied by the enactment of Subsection (2) and why the enactment of Sub-section (2) was found necessary. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proceedings involving a large number of assessees concerning multiple questions of claims, deductions and exemptions, which assessments have to be completed in a time frame. To protect the interests of the Revenue, therefore, such special provisions are made under section 147 of the Act. However, it must be appreciated that an assessment previously framed after scrutiny when reopened, results into considerable hardship to the assessee. The assessment gets reopened not only qua those grounds which are recorded in the reasons, but also with respect to the entire original assessment, of course at the hands of the Revenue. This obviously would lead to considerable hardship and uncertainty. It is precisely for this reason that even while recognizing such powers, in special requirements of the statute, certain safeguards are provided by the statute which are zealously guarded by the courts. Interpreting such statutory provisions courts upon courts have held that an assessment previously framed cannot be reopened on a mere change of opinion. It is stated that the power to reopening cannot be equated with review. 32. The fact that under the Finance Act, 2021 the provisions for reasse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o replace . In Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, at page 1281, the word substitute has been defined to mean to put in the place of another person or thing . or to exchange . In Collins English Dictionary, the word substitute has been defined to mean to serve or cause to serve in place of another person or thing ; to replace (an atom or group in a molecule) with (another atom or group) ; or a person or thing that serves in place of another, such as a player in a game who takes the place of an injured colleague . 25. In Zile Singh v. State of Haryana and Ors. wherein the effect of an amendment in the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 by Act No. 15 of 1994 whereby the word after was substituted by the word upto fell for consideration; wherein Lahoti, C.J. speaking for a three-Judge Bench held the said amendment to have a retrospective effect being declaratory in nature as thereby obvious absurdity occurring in the first amendment and bring the same in conformity with what the legislature really intended to provide was removed, stating: (SCC p. 12 paras 23-25) 23. The text of Section 2 of the Second Amendment Act provides for the word upto being substitut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i v. T.J. Joseph, Northern India Caterers (Private) Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Anr., Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Shiv Shanker and Ratan Lal Adukia and Anr. v. Union of India.) When the new Act contains a repealing section mentioning the Acts which it expressly repeals, the presumption against implied repeal of other laws is further strengthened on the principle expressio unius (persone vel rei) est exclusio alterius. (The express intention of one person or thing is the exclusion of another), as illuminatingly stated in Garnett v. Bradley. The continuance of existing legislation, in the absence of an express provision of repeal by implication lies on the party asserting the same. The presumption is, however, rebutted and a repeal is inferred by necessary implication when the provisions of the later Act are so inconsistent with or repugnant to the provisions of the earlier Act and that the two cannot stand together. But, if the two can be read together and some application can be made of the words in the earlier Act, a repeal will not be inferred. (See: A.G. v. Moore, Ratan Lal case and R.S. Raghunath v. State of Karnataka) 35. In case of State of Rajasthan Vs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... od it was operative prior to the date of such repeal . 36. It can thus be seen that original provisions upon their substitution stood repealed for all purposes and had no existence after introduction of the substituting provisions. We may refer to Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 which provides interalia that where the State Act or Central Act or regulation repeals any enactment then unless a different intention appears repeal shall not revive anything not in force or existing at the time at which the repeal takes effect or affect the previous operation of any enactment so repealed or anything duly done or suffered thereunder. Under the circumstances after substitution unless there is any intention discernible in the scheme of statute either pre-existing or newly introduced, the substituted provisions would not survive. 37. In this context we have perused the provisions of reassessment contained in the Finance Act, 2021. We have noticed earlier the major departure that the new scheme of reassessment has made under these provisions. The time limits for issuing notice for reassessment have been changed. The concept of income chargeable to tax escaping assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ued for the past assessment years by resorting to the larger period of limitation prescribed in newly substituted clause (b) of Section 149(1). This would indicate that the notice that would be issued after 01.04.2021 would be in terms of the substituted Section 149(1) but without breaching the upper time limit provided in the original Section 149(1) which stood substituted. This aspect has also been highlighted in the memorandum explaining the proposed provisions in the Finance Bill. If according to the revenue for past period provisions of section 149 before amendment were applicable, this first proviso to section 149(1) was wholly unnecessary. Looked from both angles, namely, no indication of surviving the past provisions after the substitution and in fact an active indication to the contrary, inescapable conclusion that we must arrive at is that for any action of issuance of notice under Section 148 after 01.04.2021 the newly introduced provisions under the Finance Act, 2021 would apply. Mere extension of time limits for issuing notice under section 148 would not change this position that obtains in law. Under no circumstances the extended period available in clause (b) of s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de or that it is inconsistent with the provisions of the Act or it is contrary to some of the statutes applicable on the subject matter. In case of J.K. Industries Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors., reported in (2007) 13 SCC 673, it was observed as under:- 63. At the outset, we may state that on account of globalization and socio-economic problems (including income disparities in our economy) the power of Delegation has become a constituent element of legislative power as a whole. However, as held in the case of Indian Express Newspaper v. Union of India reported in (1985) 1 SCC 641 at page 689, subordinate legislation does not carry the same degree of immunity which is enjoyed by a statute passed by a competent Legislature. Subordinate legislation may be questioned on any of the grounds on which plenary legislation is questioned. In addition, it may also be questioned on the ground that it does not conform to the statute under which it is made. It may further be questioned on the ground that it is inconsistent with the provisions of the Act or that it is contrary to some other statute applicable on the same subject matter. Therefore, it has to yield to plenary legisla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Accordingly, these explanations are unconstitutional and declared as invalid. 41. As noted, two Division Benches of Allahabad and Delhi High Courts have taken similar view. Two learned Single Judges of Calcutta and this High Court have followed this trend. Independently also we hold the same beliefs. As noted earlier we are conscious that Single Judge of Chhattisgarh High Court in Palak Khatuja (supra) (2021) 438 ITR 622 has taken a different view. The view of the High Court was that the impugned notices were valid since by virtue of notifications dated 31.03.2021 and 27.04.2021 the application of Section 148 which was originally existing before amendment was deferred. It was further observed as under:- Reading of the aforesaid notification would show that it was issued in exercise of power conferred under the Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 and time for issuance of notice under Section 148, the end date was initially extended uptill on 30th day of April 2021 and subsequently again by notification dated 27th April, 2021 the time limit of 30th day of April 2021 was further extended up till 30th day of June, 2021. By effect o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
