Priknit Exports and M/s. Jindal Fine Industries and Handfab India and Pashina International and Tilak Raj Bedi and M/s.TRB Exports Pvt.Ltd and M/s.Anand Concast Ltd. and M/S.Abhitex International and M/s.Abhitex International and Paliwal Exports and M/s.Liberty Enterprises V. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-III Ludhiana and Union of India and Income Tax Officer,Ward -3 Panipat and Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-I Jalandhar

CWP/1335/2008

AI Insights

The case involves multiple writ petitions challenging the retrospective insertion of conditions in the third and fourth proviso to Section 80 HHC (3) of the Income Tax Act, as amended by the Taxation Laws (Second Amendment) Act, 2005. These petitions were consolidated due to their identical nature and were influenced by a prior judgment from the Gujarat High Court, which addressed similar issues. The Supreme Court had previously transferred related petitions to the Gujarat High Court to ensure a unified decision. Following the Gujarat High Court's decision, the Bombay High Court and subsequently the Punjab and Haryana High Court adopted the same ruling, quashing the retrospective application of the amendment but allowing it to take effect from the date of the amendment onwards.

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 821712 (HC-CHANDIGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 22-02-2013
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Gujarat High Court judgment dated July 02, 2012
• Laws Referred To: Taxation Laws (Second Amendment) Act, 2005
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Assessee Lawyers: PANKAJ JAIN; D K GOYAL; R P SAWHNEY; SAURV KHURANA; S K MUKHI; YOGESH PUTNEY; RAJESH KATOCH; SAVITA SAXENA
• Keywords: Income Tax; Retrospective amendment; Section 80 HHC
• Section: 80 HHC (3)

Judgement Text

"CWP No.1335 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. CWP No.1335 of 2008 Date of Decision: 22.2.2013 Priknit Exports,B-XXV/539/A/10,GT Road Jalandhar --Petitioner Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-III Ludhiana and others --Respondents 2. CWP No.955 of 2007 Date of Decision: 22.2.2013 M/s. Jindal Fine Industries --Petitioner Vs. Union of India and others --Respondents 3. CWP No.20845 of 2008 Date of Decision: 22.2.2013 Handfab India,Mahavir Colony,Panipat --Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer,Ward -3 Panipat and others --Respondents 4. CWP No.20849 of 2008 Date of Decision: 22.2.2013 Handfab India,Mahavir Colony,Panipat --Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer,Ward -3 Panipat and others --Respondents 5. CWP No.19612 of 2008 CWP No.1335 of 2008 2 Date of Decision: 22.2.2013 Pashina International, Basti Sheikh Road,Jalandhar --Petitioner Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-I Jalandhar and others --Respondents 6. CWP No.20833 of 2008 Date of Decision: 22.2.2013 Handfab India,Mahavir Colony,Panipat --Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer,Ward -3 Panipat and others --Respondents 7. CWP No.20827 of 2008 Date of Decision: 22.2.2013 Handfab India,Mahavir Colony,Panipat --Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer,Ward -3 Panipat and others --Respondents 8. CWP No.7361 of 2008 Date of Decision: 22.2.2013 Tilak Raj Bedi --Petitioner Vs. Union of India and others --Respondents 9. CWP No.18823 of 2008 CWP No.1335 of 2008 3 Date of Decision: 22.2.2013 M/s.TRB Exports Pvt.Ltd --Petitioner Vs. Union of India and others --Respondents 10. CWP No.20828 of 2008 Date of Decision: 22.2.2013 Handfab India,Mahavir Colony,Panipat --Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer,Ward -3 Panipat and others --Respondents 11. CWP No.19575 of 2008 Date of Decision: 22.2.2013 M/s.Anand Concast Ltd. --Petitioner Vs. Union of India and others --Respondents 12. CWP No. 19568 of 2008 Date of Decision: 22.2.2013 M/S.Abhitex International --Petitioner Vs. Union of India and others --Respondents 13. CWP No. 18816 of 2008 CWP No.1335 of 2008 4 Date of Decision: 22.2.2013 M/S.TRB Exports Pvt.Ltd. --Petitioner Vs. Union of India and others --Respondents 14. CWP No.19617 of 2008 Date of Decision: 22.2.2013 M/s.Abhitex International --Petitioner Vs. Union of India and others --Respondents 15. CWP No.9546 of 2008 Date of Decision: 22.2.2013 Paliwal Exports, Paliwal Nagar,GT Road,Panipat --Petitioner Vs. Union of India and others --Respondents 16. CWP No.10014 of 2008 Date of Decision: 22.2.2013 M/s.Liberty Enterprises, Karnal --Petitioner Vs. Union of India and others --Respondents CWP No.1335 of 2008 5 CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.Pankaj Jain and Mr.D.K.Goyal, Advocates, for the petitioners in CWP No.1335 of 2008, 19612 of 2008,20827, 20828,20833,20845 and 20849 of 2008 Mr.R.P.Sawhney, Sr. Advocate,with Mr.Saurv Khurana,Advocate,for the petitioners in CWP Nos. 9546 and 10014 of 2008. Mr.S.K.Mukhi,Advocate, for the petitioners in CWP No. 18816, 18823, 19868, 19575 and 19617 of 2008 Sarvshri Yogesh Putney, Rajesh Katoch and Ms.Savita Saxena, Senior Standing Counsels for the respondents A.K.SIKRI, CJ: (Oral) In all these petitions, insertion of conditions in the third and forth proviso to Section 80 HHC (3) of the Act by amendment of Taxation Laws (Second Amendment) Act, 2005 with retrospective effect have been challenged. It is a matter of record that similar writ petitions were filed in various High Courts. Transfer petition was filed in the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court had directed transfer of all those writ petitions to the High Court of Gujarat. The High Court of Gujarat vide judgment dated July 02, 2012 decided the said bunch of writ petitions and quashed the impugned amendment only to the extent that the operation of the said section could be given effect from the date of the amendment and not in respect of earlier assessment years. The Bombay High Court following the aforesaid judgment of the Gujarat High Court, disposed of all the CWP No.1335 of 2008 6 writ petitions before it in the following manner:- “It is admitted that the present writ petitions are identical to the Writ Petitions which were the subject matter of the Transfer Petitions before the Supreme Court and the judgment of the Gujarat High Court. Only the first four writ petitions listed above were the subject matter of the Transfer Petitions. In other words, the first four matters stood transferred to the Gujarat High Court pursuant to the above orders of the Supreme Court. The other petitions, therefore,did not stand transferred to the Gujarat High Court. Keeping in mind that the Supreme Court had transferred all the matters to the Gujarat High Court in order to avoid confusion and difficulties in enforcement of conflicting judgments of different High Courts, we are of the view that it would be appropriate in these writ petitions to follow the judgment of the Gujarat High Court. In the circumstances, for the above reason, the Writ Petitions, other than the first four Writ Petitions, are disposed of in the terms of the order and judgment of the Gujarat High Court. The first four writ petitions, in any event, stand disposed of by the order and judgment of the Gujarat High Court. No order as to costs”. All the writ petitions are disposed of in a similar manner, in same terms. (A.K.SIKRI) CHIEFJUSTICE 22.2.2013 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN ) rr JUDGE CWP No.1335 of 2008 7 "