M/S LUXMI TRADERS V. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

CWP/4900/2008

AI Insights

The case involves M/s Luxmi Traders, the petitioner, who filed a writ petition challenging certain provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, specifically Section 245HA, and related sections, as unconstitutional and ultra vires. The petitioner sought to prevent the abatement of applications under Section 245C of the Act, which were not decided within a specified time, and contested the requirement of interest payment as a condition precedent for proceeding with such applications. The High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, after hearing the parties and considering a previous judgment in a similar case (CWP No. 18244 of 2007), disposed of the writ petition in accordance with that judgment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 724015 (HC-CHANDIGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 23-08-2013
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Smt. Satish Bala Malhotra v. Union of India and others
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: RAJESH KATOCH
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJIV SHARMA
• Keywords: Income tax settlement commission; Recall order; Ultra Vires; Unconstitutional provisions; Abatement of applications; Payment of interest
• Section: 245D(4); 151; 245C; 245D(2D); 245D(2A); 245D(HA)

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M. No. 8206 of 2013 and CWP No. 4900 of 2008 Date of Decision: 23.8.2013 M/s Luxmi Traders ....Petitioner. Versus Union of India and others ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA. PRESENT: Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Advocate for revenue-respondent No.3. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. C.M. No. 8206 of 2013 This is an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for recalling of order dated 30.8.2012 as according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, it was inadvertently stated that the application filed before the Income Tax Settlement Commission (hereinafter referred to as “the Commission”) was pending whereas the statement was made that the said application was decided by the Commission. Notice of the application was issued. Learned counsel for the revenue-respondent No.3 does not dispute that the application before the Commission is pending. In view of the above, the application is allowed and the order dated 30.8.2012 is recalled. CWP No.4900 of 2008 1. With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is taken up for hearing today. 2. The prayer in the writ petition is for declaration of the provisions of Section 245HA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Singh Gurbachan 2013.08.27 14:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 4900 of 2008 -2- Act”) as unconstitutional and ultra vires to the extent that such provisions mandates abatement of applications made under Section 245C of the Act in respect of which an order under Section 245D(4) of the Act has not been passed within the time period or period specified under the said Section. Further, direction has been sought to be issued to the Commission to dispose of the application of the petitioner pending before it on or before 31.3.2008. It has been prayed that the provisions of Section 245D(2A), 245D(2D) and 245D(HA) be declared unconstitutional and ultra vires to the extent that such provisions required payment of interest before 31st July, 2007 in respect of the application filed before 1st July, 2007 as a condition precedent to allow such application to be proceeded with for final disposal. The said provisions gives retrospective operation by insisting on payment of interest as a condition precedent to allow such application admitted under Section 245D of the Act prior to 1st June, 2007 wherein there was no direction by the Commission to pay such interest. It has been sought to be directed to the Commission to proceed with notwithstanding the non-payment of interest pending the adjudication of the very issue of levy of interest to proceedings before the Commission. 3. Learned counsel for the parties are agreed that the dispute herein stands concluded by the judgment of this Court in CWP No. 18244 of 2007 (Smt. Satish Bala Malhotra v. Union of India and others) decided on 21.9.2012. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and in view of the consensus between the parties, the writ petition is disposed of in terms of order dated 21.9.2012 passed in CWP No. 18244 of 2007. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE August 23, 2013 (G.S. SANDHAWALIA) gbs JUDGE Singh Gurbachan 2013.08.27 14:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh "