Punjab Stainless Steel Industries thr. Mr. Havinder Singh V. UOI thr. Secretary Ministry of Finance Govt. of India Department of Revenue North Block

W.P.(C)/4782/2007

AI Insights

The case involves Punjab Stainless Steel Industries, represented by Mr. Havinder Singh, as the petitioner, who challenged a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The notice was related to the retrospective application of Section 80HHC, which had been previously declared ultra vires by the Gujarat High Court and affirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Avani Exports. The Delhi High Court, referencing the Supreme Court's decision and its own earlier judgment in Saroj Dassani v. UOI, ruled in favor of the petitioner, quashing the notice.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 842682 (HC-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 25-02-2026
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Commissioner of Income Tax v. Avani Exports, Saroj Dassani v. UOI
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: VIPUL AGRAWAL; HARSHITA K
• Keywords: Income Tax; Quashing of notice; Retrospectivity; Ultra Vires
• Section: 148; 80HHC

Judgement Text

"$~57 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 4782/2007 PUNJAB STAINLESS STEEL INDUSTRIES THR. MR. HAVINDER SINGH .....Petitioner Through: None. versus UOI THR. SECRETARY MINSITRY OF FINANCE GOVT. OF INDIA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE NORTH BOLCK .....Respondent Through: Mr. Vipul Agrawal, SSC with Ms. Harshita K., Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR O R D E R % 25.02.2026 1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has sought quashing of notice dated 28.03.2007 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1961’). 2. Retrospectivity given to Section 80HHC of the Act of 1961 has been held to be ultra vires by the Gujarat High Court and affirmed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Avani Exports reported in (2015) 232 Taxman 357 (SC). 3. Following the same in W.P.(C) No. 16816/2006 (Saroj Dassani v. UOI), this Court has held thus :- “5. If the judgment dated 30.03.2015 passed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Avani Exports (supra) is read in conjunction with the judgement of the Gujarat High Court dated 02.07.2012, it This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/02/2026 at 12:50:55 Printed from counselvise.com is clear that the finding recorded in para 26, reproduced hereinabove, was upheld with some alteration in para 27 of the said judgment, that too in favour of the assessees and direction given in para 27 of aforesaid judgment was substituted by the following: “Having seen the twin conditions and since 80HHC benefit is not available after 1.4.05, we are satisfied that cases of exporters having a turnover below and those above 10 cr. Should be treated similarly. This order is in substitution of the judgment in Appeal”. 6. The consequence of the judgment dated 30.03.2015 of Hon’ble the Supreme Court, is that irrespective of the amount involved, the amendment brought in Section 80HHC of the Act of 1961 cannot be given retrospective effect.” 4. In the light of the judgment in the case of Avani Exports (supra) rendered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court and reasoning given in Saroj Dassani (supra), the impugned notice dated 28.03.2007 is hereby quashed and set aside. The petition is allowed. DINESH MEHTA, J RENU BHATNAGAR, J FEBRUARY 25, 2026/neha/my This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/02/2026 at 12:50:55 Printed from counselvise.com "