SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Bom) 591

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
K.R.Shriram, Neela Gokhale, JJ.
Sar Senapati Santaji Ghorpade Sugar Factory Ltd - Appellant
Versus
Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 5862 of 2021
Decided On : 02-04-2024

Advocates appeared:
J.D.Mistri, Advocate, Madhur Agrawal, Advocate, Atit Soni, Advocate, P.B.Gujar, Advocate, Suresh Kumar, Advocate

Retrospective amendments cannot affect vested rights, and valid applications filed before such amendments remain enforceable.

Headnote:(A) Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 132, 153A, 245C, 245D, 245AA, 245M - Challenge to notices and notifications regarding eligibility for Settlement Commission applications - The court held that retrospective amendments cannot affect vested rights and that the petitioner had a valid application pending before the Settlement Commission. (Paras 4, 16, 35)

(B) Retrospective Legislation - The principle that retrospective legislation cannot take away vested rights was emphasized, and the court ruled that the petitioner’s application, filed before the amendment, remains valid. (Paras 20, 34)

(C) Administrative Authority - The CBDT cannot impose additional eligibility conditions beyond those prescribed in the Act. (Paras 24, 34)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a company, challenged notices and a notification that restricted eligibility for filing applications before the Settlement Commission based on a cut-off date of 31/1/2021, arguing that it had filed a valid application on 18/3/2021.

Findings of Court:
The court quashed the impugned notice and notification, affirming that the petitioner’s application should be considered as valid and pending.

Issues: The main issues included the validity of the petitioner’s application in light of the retrospective amendment and the legality of the additional eligibility condition imposed by the CBDT.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the petitioner had a vested right to have its application adjudicated, and retrospective amendments cannot invalidate actions already taken.

Result: The notice and notification were quashed, and the petitioner’s application was to be considered in accordance with the law.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

K.R. SHRIRAM, J - Since the pleadings are completed, by consent of the parties, we decided to dispose the petition at the admission stage itself.

2. Therefore, rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

3. Petitioner is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading in sugar, ethanol, power, etc. Petitioner received a notice dtd. 16/9/2021 from Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(1), Pune, who is respondent no.1, stating that a valid application for Assessment Years 2014-15 to 2020-21 has not been filed by petitioner before the Settlement Commission. It is this notice alongwith a condition in a Press Release dtd. 7/9/2021 in so far as it seeks to make only those assessees eligible to file application before the Settlement Commission who were eligible as on 31/1/2021 which was challenged in the petition. Subsequently, upon leave being granted, the petition was amended to also impugn a notification dtd. 28/9/2021 in so far as it sought to make only those assessees eligible to file applications before the Interim Board Settlement Commission (IBSC), respondent no.3, who are eligible as on 31/1/2021.

Facts in brief :

4. On 25/7/2019 a search action under Sec. 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was conducted on petitioner and was concluded on 29/8/2019. Thereafter, petitioner received a notice dtd. 5/2/2021 under Sec. 153A of the Act for Assessment Years 2014-15 to 2020-21 calling upon petitioner to file return of income within 15 days. On 18/3/2021 petitioner filed before the Settlement Commission an application under Sec. 245C of the Act for Assessment Years 2014-15 to 2020-21.

5. In the meantime, a Finance Bill, 2021 was laid before the legislature on 1/2/2021. The Finance Bill proposed certain amendments to Chapter XIX-A of the Act including insertion of sub-sec. (5) to Sec. 245C of the Act to provide that 'No application shall be made under this Sec. on or after 1/2/2021".

6. It is stated in the petition that even though it was just the Bill and was not promulgated into the Act, certain benches of the Settlement Commission stopped accepting the applications after 1/2/2021. Later, based on directions given by various Courts, the Settlement Commission accepted and entertained the applications filed by assessees as the Bill gets enacted only after the assent of the Hon'ble President of India and till such time, the Settlement Commission is duty bound to accept applications so filed by assessees. Accordingly, petitioner made application to the Settlement Commission on 18/3/2021, which was accepted by the Settlement Commission.

7. The Hon"ble President of India gave assent to the Finance Bill on 28/3/2021 after which sub-sec. (5) was inserted in Sec. 245C of the Act. The other amendments in the Finance Act, 2021, in so far as they are relevant, are as under :

    (i) Interim Board was defined in Sec. 245A(da) to mean a board as constituted under Sec. 245AA.

    (ii) 'pending application' was defined in Sec. 245A(eb) to mean an application which was filed under Sec. 245C and which fulfills the following conditions, viz.:

    (a) it was not declared invalid under sub-sec. (2c) of Sec. 245D of the Act; and

    (b) No order under sub-sec. (4) of Sec. 245D was issued on or before 31/1/2021 with respect to such applications.

    (iii) Interim Board was constituted as per Sec. 245AA of the Act.

    (iv) A proviso was inserted in Sec. 245B of the Act to provide that the Settlement Commission shall cease to operate on or after 1/2/2021.

    (v) Other provisions were also made in Chapter XIXA to provide for similar powers to the Interim Board settlement for settlement of disputes as were provided earlier to the Settlement Commission.

8. The Interim Board was notified by the Union of India by Notification No.91 of 2021 dtd. 10/8/2021.

9. Respondent no.3, the IBSC, issued a Press Release dtd. 7/9/2021 stating that in order to provide relief to the tax payers, who were eligible for filing applications as on 31/1/2021 and who could

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top