IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
V.M. Sahai, Actg. C.J. and R.P. Dholaria, JJ.
Niko Resources Limited - Appellants
Vs.
Union of India and Ors. - Respondent
Special Civil Application Nos. 10903 and 13134 of 2009
Decided On: 26.03.2015
V.M. Sahai, J.
1. The Petitioner is a foreign company based in Canada and has set up a project office in India with the permission of Reserve Bank of India. The Petitioner is subject to income tax in India in accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax laws in India. The Petitioner is engaged in exploration, development and production of mineral oil and natural gas. The Petitioner has been awarded the right to explore, develop and produce mineral oil in various blocks. For this purpose, the Petitioner has entered into what is known as “Production Sharing Contract” (for short the PSC) with the Government of India for exploration, development and production of “mineral oil”. The PSC specifies the area over which the Petitioner has been given such rights. PSC defines the Contract Area as a Block. One such PSC was entered into on 23rd September, 1994 and another on 17th July, 2001 for the exploration, development and production of mineral oil in the Hazira and Surat block respectively. The Petitioner has been producing crude oil and natural gas from such Blocks.
2. The Petitioner has been claiming benefit of deduction of 100% of the profits and gains from the production of mineral oil and natural gas under Section 80-IB(9) as it stood prior to an amendment to Section 80-IB(9) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) which was introduced by the Finance (No. 2) Act 2009. In these proceedings the constitutional validity of the amendment to sub-Section (9) of Section 80-IB and Explanation added to it under the Act by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009, has been challenged.
3. The relevant portion of the amendment in the present proceedings read as under:-
“37. In Section 80-IB of the Income-tax Act,-
(a) for sub-Section (9), the following sub-Section shall be substituted and shall be deemed to have been substituted with effect from the 1st day of April, 2000, namely:-
‘(9) The amount of deduction to an undertaking shall be hundred per cent, of the profits, for a period of seven consecutive assessment years, including the initial assessment year, if such undertaking fulfills any of the following, namely:-
(i) is located in North-Eastern Region and has begun or begins commercial production of mineral oil before the 1st day of April, 1997;
(ii) is located in any part of India and has begun or begins commercial production of mineral oil on or after the 1st day of April, 1997;
(iii) is engaged in refining of mineral oil and begins such refining on or after the 1st day of October, 1998.
Explanation.-- For the purposes of claiming deduction under this sub-Section, all blocks licensed under a single contract, which has been awarded under the New Exploration Licensing Policy announced by the Government of India vide Resolution No. O- 19018/22/95-ONG.DO.VL dated 10th February, 1999 or has been awarded in pursuance of any law for the time being in force or has been awarded by Central or a State Government in any other manner, shall be treated as a single “undertaking”.’:
(a) in sub-Section (9), as so substituted,-
(A) in clause (iii), after the words, figures and letters “the 1st day of October, 1998”, the words, figures and letters “but not later than the 31st day of March, 2012” shall be inserted;
(B) after clause (iii), the following clause shall be inserted with effect from the 1st day of April, 2010, namely:--
‘(iv) is engaged in commercial production of natural gas in blocks licensed under the VIII Round of bidding for award of exploration contracts (hereafter referred to as “NELP-VIII”) under the New Exploration Licensing Policy announced by the Government of India vide Resolution No. 0-190l8/22/95-ONG.DO.VL dated 10 t h February, 1999 and begins commercial production of natural gas on or after the 1st day of April, 2009;
(Emphasis supplied by us)
4. We are concerned with the amendments which have been highlighted above. The relevant amendments in question are in two parts.
5. The first part is the insertion of the Explan
Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kochi
Associated Cement Companies Ltd. v. Govt. of A.P. and another
Association of Natural Gas and others v. Union of India and others
Ayurveda Pharmacy v. State of Tamil Nadu
B.P. Krishna Moorthy v. State of Orissa
C.I.T., Bombay v. Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd.
Coffee Board Bangalore v. Joint Commercial Tax Officer
Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Punjab, J & K, Chandigarh, Patiala v. Yuvraj Amrinder Singh and Ors.
Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay v. Podar Cement Pvt. Ltd. and others
Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-I, New Delhi v. Vatika Township Private Limited
Deoki Nandan Prasad v. State of Bihar and others
Escorts Limited and another v. Union of India
Entertainment Tax Officer and another v. Ambae Picture Palace
Entertainment Network (India) Ltd. v. Super Cassette Industries Ltd.
Govind Das v. Income-tax Officer
Government of India and others v. Indian Tobacco Association
Jharkhand and others v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava and another
J.S. Yadav v. State of U.P and another (2011) 6 SCC 570
K.P. Varghese v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Ernakulam and another
Keshavlal Jethalal Shah v. Mohanlal Bhagwandas & Anr.
K.T. Plantation (P) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka (2011) 9 SCC 1
Karnataka Bank Limited v. State of A.P.
National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Federation of India Ltd. v. Union of India
Reliance Natural Resources Ltd. v. Reliance Industries Ltd. (2010) 7 SCC 1
Ramanlal Bhailal Patel v. State of Gujarat
R.C. Tobacco (P) Ltd. v. Union of India and another
S. Sundaram Piliai and others v. V. R. Pattabiraman and others
Tata Motors v. State of Maharashtra
State of Kerala v. Haji K. Kutty
Shashikant Laxman Kale v. Union of India (1990) 4 SCC 366.
State of Kerala v. Padmanabhan
Samatha v. State of A.P. and others
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Rakesh Kohli
State of A. P. and others. v. Mcdowell & Co. and others (1996) 3 SCC 709
Subramaian Swamy v. Director, Central Bureau of Investigation and another
Shimnit Utsch India Pvt. Ltd. v. West Bengal Transport Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd.
WPIL Limited, Ghaziabad v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut, U.P.
Virtual Soft Systems Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-I
gpt-4
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.