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

2017 Supreme(Mad) 3036

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.
Thiagarajan Kumararaja - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India, rep. by the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi & Others - Respondents
W.P. No. 28181 of 2017 & WMP. No. 30311 of 2017
Decided On : 06-11-2017

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:V. Prashankiran, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Rabu Manohar, SPCCG, G. Rajagopalan, ASG assisted by Hema Muralikrishnan, Advocate.

Headnote:

Income Tax Act, 1961 - Section 139AA - Income Tax Department - Tax assessment - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Senior Panel Counsel for the Central Government and learned Additional Solicitor General assisted by learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Income Tax Department - Held, On a reading of the above quoted paragraphs in the decision in the case, it would clearly show that the Honble Supreme Court has not stayed the Proviso to Sub-Section (2) of Section 139AA of the Act and the partial stay would be applicable only to facilitate the other transactions, which are mentioned in Rule 114B of the Rules, which pertains to transactions, in relation to which, PAN is to be quoted in all documents for the purpose of Clause (C) of Sub-Section (5) of Section 139A of the Act - Therefore, to state that the partial stay granted by the Honble Supreme Court would endure to the benefit of the petitioner even for filing income tax returns is a plea, which is not sustainable and is liable to be rejected - Petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard V.Prashanthkiran, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Rabu Manohar, learned Senior Panel Counsel for the Central Government and Mr.G.Rajagopalan, learned Additional Solicitor General assisted by Mrs.Hema Muralikrishnan, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Income Tax Department. This Court also heard Mr.Suhrith Parthasarathy, learned counsel, who intervened in the matter, as he had appeared in another writ petition in W.P.No.27826 of 2017 wherein an identical prayer is sought for and a interim order has been granted on 31.10.2017.

2. In fact, the petitioner, in the typed set of papers filed in this writ petition, has enclosed the interim order granted by this Court on 31.10.2017, which is quoted herein below:

"Heard Mr.Suhrith Parthasarathy, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. The petitioner before this Court is a practicing advocate and she has filed this writ petition praying for a direction to the third respondent to allow her to file income tax returns for the assessment year 2017-18 either manually or through e-filing facility without insisting for production of an aadhar number/card or enrollment identity as defined under Section 139AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

3. The petitioner's case rests upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Binoy Viswam Vs. Union of India [reported in (2017) 396 ITR 66] wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court pointed out that since the impugned provision therein (Section 139AA of the said Act) is yet to be considered on the touchstone of Article 21 of The Constitution including on the debate around the right to privacy and human dignity, etc. as limbs of Article 21, till the aforesaid aspect of Article 21 is decided by the Constitution Bench, a partial stay of the aforesaid proviso is necessary. In respect of those assessees, who do not have an aadhar card and who do not comply with the provisions of Section 139AA(2), it was held that their PAN cards cannot be treated as invalid for the time being.

4. The matter has now been referred to a Constitution Bench, which is to hear the matter sometime by the end of November 2017. It is seen that in identical circumstances, one of the assessees by name Prasanth Sugathan moved the High Court of Kerala by filing W.P.(Civil).No.26033 of 2017 (D) wherein a similar relief was sought and the High Court of Kerala, by an order dated 04.8.2017, issued a direction to the third respondent therein to allow the petitioner therein to file income tax returns manually without insisting upon the aadhar number or card or enrollment number pending disposal of the writ petition. I am inclined to grant a similar relief, since today being the last date for filing the income tax returns. If the income tax returns are filed belatedly and if, ultimately, the matter is decided by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the petitioner, then she may be liable for payment of interest for belated payment of tax. The balance of convenience is in favour of the petitioner for the grant of appropriate interim order.

5. Accordingly, there will be an interim direction to the third respondent to permit the petitioner to file her income tax returns for the assessment year 2017-18 either manually or through appropriate e-filing facility without insisting for the aadhar number and/or enrollment ID. Notice to the respondents is accepted by Mr.Navin Durai Babu, learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue. He seeks time to get instructions and file counter. List on 18.12.2017."

3. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the third respondent to grant permission to him to file his income tax returns for the assessment year 2017-18 either manually or through appropriate e-filing facility without insisting the petitioner to produce his aadhaar card and/or enrollment ID as defined under Section 139AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act) and not to initiate coercive action against the petitioner.

4. The pet



















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
whatsapp-icon Back to top