H.P. Pollution Control Board V. Union of India and others

CWP/1885/2016

AI Insights

The case involves two writ petitions filed by the H.P. Pollution Control Board against the Union of India and others, challenging administrative orders related to the jurisdiction of income tax exemption cases. CWP No. 1885 of 2016 contested an order transferring jurisdiction over exemption cases exceeding \'5 crores in gross receipts to the Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) in Chandigarh. CWP No. 3929 of 2015 challenged the transfer of specific case records to the same authority. The court consolidated these petitions due to common legal and factual questions, ultimately dismissing them based on the rationale that the policy decision was neither illegal nor arbitrary, and served a legitimate administrative purpose.

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 821076 (HC-HIMACHAL_PRADESH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 09-10-2017
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: CWP No. 279 of 2016, H.P. State Pollution Control Board versus Union of India and others
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: ASHOK SHARMA; SUKARMA; VINAY KUTHIALA; VANDANA KUTHIALA
• Assessee Lawyers: AJAY VAIDYA
• Keywords: Assessment proceedings; Exemption; Income Tax; Jurisdiction; Policy Decision
• Section: 142

Judgement Text

" IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 1885 of 2016 a/w CWP No. 3929 of 2015 Date of decision: 09.10.2017. CWP No. 1885/2016. H.P. Pollution Control Board …..Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ……. Respondents CWP No. 3929/2015. H.P. Pollution Control Board …..Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ……. Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Acting Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner(s): Mr. Ajay Vaidya, Advocate. For the respondent(s): Mr. Ashok Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General of India with Ms. Sukarma, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. Mr. Vinay Kuthiala, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Vandana Kuthiala, Advocate, for respondents No. 2 to 6. Sanjay Karol, Acting Chief Justice (oral) Petitioner by means of CWP No. 1885 of 2016, lays challenge to order dated 15.11.2014 (AnnexureP7) whereby Deputy/Assistant Commissioner to Income Tax (Exemptions) Range-2 has been empowered to deal with the matters, seeking exemption under various statutory 2 provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”, for short) pertaining to cases where gross receipt exceeds `5 crores, falling within the Revenue Districts of State of Haryana and Himachal Pradesh. Resultant challenge is laid to Annexure P5 dated 22.1.2016, assessment proceedings for the year 2013-2014 and Annexure P9 for the assessment year 2014-2015, issued under Section 142 of the Act. 2. By means of CWP No. 3929 of 2015, petitioner has laid challenge to order dated 24.7.2015 (Annexure P2) whereby the record of case No. AAALH0191B pertaining to M/s HP State Environment Protection and Pollution Control Board, Shimla has been ordered to be transferred to Deputy/Assistant Commissioner to Income Tax (Exemptions) Circle-2, Chandigarh. 3. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in these writ petitions, hence, they are taken up together for disposal by this common judgment. 4. From the response filed by the Revenue, one finds that decision to empower the officers at Chandigarh to deal with all the cases of exemption is a policy decision. We 3 are of the considered view that there is neither any illegality nor any irrationality/arbitrariness with the same. Also none can be pointed out, save and except that it is extremely difficult for poor litigants of the State to approach the Authority at Chandigarh. We are not inclined to accept this as a ground for holding the policy decision to be irrational/arbitrary/illegal and this we say so for the following reasons: (a) Petitioner before us is an instrumentality of the State; (b) None else has come forward venting out such grievances (c) Conferment of jurisdiction is only with respect to cases where gross receipts are more than `5 crores. Hence it cannot be said that policy decision is unduly harsh on the poor residents and businessmen of the State. (d) Centralization of particular category of cases is with an object of monitoring the process of grant of exemption enabling a centralized agency to effectively implement the provisions of the Scheme and the Act. 5. We find that during the pendency of previous petition, i.e., CWP No. 279 of 2016, titled H.P. State 4 Pollution Control Board versus Union of India and others, similar notice under Section 142 of the Act in relation to assessment proceedings for assessment year 2014-2015 was issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Shimla Circle. We find this action to have been explained by the respondents in para 3 of their affidavit, highlighting that such notice came to be issued only to avoid the assessment proceedings being barred by limitation and more so, in view of interim order passed in the earlier proceedings initiated by them. 6. As such the present petitions are disposed of alongwith pending applications, if any. (Sanjay Karol) Acting Chief Justice October 09, 2017. (Sandeep Sharma) (cm Thakur) Judge "