THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME V. M/S.THIAGARAJAR MILLS LTD

WA(MD)/377/2019

AI Insights

The case involves a series of Writ Appeals filed by the Income Tax Department against various companies challenging the retrospective amendments made to Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005. These amendments introduced conditions that were alleged to be ultra vires and unconstitutional, affecting the benefits previously granted to exporters. The Gujarat High Court had earlier quashed these amendments, and the Supreme Court upheld this decision, leading to the disposal of the present appeals in accordance with the Supreme Court's directions.

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 682512 (HC-MADURAI)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 27-03-2019
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961, Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: P MURUGESAN
• Assessee Lawyers: R KRISHNAMOORTHY; R SRINIVASAN; R MURUGAPPAN
• Keywords: Duty Drawback; Duty Entitlement Pass Book Scheme; Duty Free Replenishment Certificate; Export Turnover; Retrospective effect; Ultra Vires; Unconstitutional
• Section: 226; 80 HHC

Judgement Text

"1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 27.03.2019 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI AND THE HONOURABLE Mrs.JUSTICE T.KRISHNAVALLI W.A.(MD)Nos.377 to 402 of 2019 and C.M.P.(MD)Nos. 3332 to 3401 of 2019 WA(MD). 377/ 2019 1 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, MADURAI. 2 THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE-I, MADURAI ..APPELLANT/RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 -Vs- 1 M/S.THIAGARAJAR MILLS LTD KAPPALUR, MADURAI-625 008. ..1ST RESPONDENT/PETITIONER 2 UNION OF INDIA REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI ..2ND RESPONDENT/1ST RESPONDENT Prayer in WA(MD). 377/ 2019 : This Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order of Single Judge made in W.P.(MD)No.7801 of 2006 dated 26.02.2014 Prayer in WP(MD). 7801/ 2006 : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court To issue a Writ of Declaration, to declare as ultravires and offending Article 14, 19(1)(g) and 300A of the Constitution of India and Section 80 HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 the conditions and restrictions introduced in Section 80 HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by section 4 of the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act,2005 ( Act 55 of 2005) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 FOR PETITIONER : MR. R. KRISHNAMOORTHY FOR RESPONDENTS: MR. R.SRINIVASAN FOR R1 MR. R.MURUGAPPAN FOR R2 WA(MD). 378/ 2019 : 1 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, MADURAI. 2 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE-I, MADURAI . ..APPELLANT/RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 - Vs. - 1 JASMINE TOWELS PRIVATE LTD., NO.125, ARUPPUKOTTAI ROAD, PERUNGUDI, MADURAI-625 022. ..1ST RESPONDENT/PETITIONER 2 UNION OF INDIA REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI. . ..2ND RESPONDENT/1ST RESPONDENT Prayer in WA(MD). 378/ 2019 : Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order of Single Judge made in W.P.(MD)No.7807 of 2006 dated 26.02.2014 Prayer in WP(MD). 7807/ 2006 : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court To issue a Writ of Declaration, to declare as ultra vires and offending Article 14, 19(1)(g) and 300 A of the Constitution of India and section 80 HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 the conditions and restrictions introduced in section 80 HHC of the INcome Tax Act 1961 by section 4 of the Taxation Laws (Amendment ) Act, 2005(Act 55 of 2005) so far as the pettiioner is concerned. FOR PETITIONER : MR. R. KRISHNAMOORTHY FOR RESPONDENTS: MR. P.MURUGESAN FOR R1 MR. R.MURUGAPPAN FOR R2 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 WA(MD). 379/ 2019 : 1 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -II, NO.10, WILLIAMS ROAD, CANTONMENT, TIRUCHIRAPPALLI. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NO.4, WILLIAMS ROAD, CANTONMENT, TIRUCHIRAPPALLI. ..APPELLANT/RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4 - Vs. - 1 M/S.ATLAS EXPORT ENTERPRISES REP.BY ITS PARTNER M.NACHIMUTHU, ATLAS CHAMBERS, NO.29-J, PUGALUR ROAD, KARUR. ..1ST RESPONDENT/PETITIONER 2 UNION OF INDIA REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI. 3 THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI. ..RESPONDENT 2 AND 3/ RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 Prayer in WA(MD). 379/ 2019 : Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order of Single Judge made in W.P.(MD) No.3280 of 2006 dated 26.02.2014 Prayer in WP(MD). 3280/ 2007 : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court To issue a Writ of declaration , to declaring the following conditions and restrictions introduced vide section 4- Amendment of section 80HHC (3)(i), INcome Tax Act, 1961, introducted vide taxation laws Amendment act, 2005(Act 55 of 2005)dated 28/12/2005 (a) he had an option to choose either the duty drawback or the Duty entitlement pass book scheme being duty entilment pass book scheme duty remission scheme and (b) the rate of drawback credit attributaxble https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 to the customs duty was higher than the rate of credit allowable under duty entitlement pass book scheme, neiong duty remission scheme ( a) he had an option to choose either the duty drawback or the duty free Replenishment Certificate, being duty remision scheme and 9B) the rate of drawback credit attributable to the customs duy was higher than the rate of credit alloable under the duty free Replenishment certificate, being duty remission scheme as Ultra Vires offending Article 14, Article 19(1)(g) and Article 300 A of the Constitution of India Section 80 HHC (3)(1) of the Income Tax aCt 1961. FOR PETITIONER : MR. R. KRISHNAMOORTHY FOR RESPONDENTS: MR.R. SRINIVASAN FOR R1 MR.R.MURUGAPPAN FOR R2 WA(MD). 380/ 2019 : THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -II, NO.10, WILLIAMS ROAD, CANTONMENT, TIRUCHIRAPPALLI. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NO.4, WILLIAMS ROAD, CANTONMENT, TIRUCHIRAPPALLI. ..APPELLANT/RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4 - Vs. - 1 M/S.ATLAS EXPORT ENTERPRISES REP.BY ITS PARTNER M.NACHIMUTHU, ATLAS CHAMBERS, NO.29-J, PUGALUR ROAD, KARUR. ..1ST RESPONDENT/PETITIONER 2 UNION OF INDIA REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI. 3 THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI. ..RESPONDENT 2 AND 3/RESPONDENT 1 AND 2 Prayer in WA(MD). 380/ 2019 :This Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order of Single Judge made in WP(MD) No.3282 of 2007 dated 26.02.2014 Prayer in WP(MD). 3282/ 2007 : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court To issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records comprised in the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5 orderof assessment as made in PAN/GIR.No. AAAFA 4788R dated 12/12/2006 for the assessment year 2004-2005 on the file of the 3rd respndnt, quash the same andconsequently direct the 3rd respondnt to pass fresh orders 9of assessment without reference to the provisions attached to sectin 4 of the amendment Act as the same is unconstitutional and invalid FOR PETITIONER : MR. R. KRISHNAMOORTHY FOR RESPONDENTS: MR. R. MURUGAPPAN FOR R2 WA(MD). 381/ 2019 : 1 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -II, NO.10, WILLIAMS ROAD, CANTONMENT, TIRUCHIRAPPALLI. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NO.4, WILLIAMS ROAD, CANTONMENT, TIRUCHIRAPPALLI. ..APPELLANT/RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4 - Vs. - 1 M/S.VEERA EXPORTERS REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, NO.72, VIVEKANANDA NAGAR, OPP.TO SENGUNTHAPURAM, MAIN ROAD, 11TH CROSS, KARUR. ..1ST RESPONDENT/PETITIONER 2 UNION OF INDIA REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI. 3 THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI. ..RESPONDENT 2 AND 3/RESPONDENT 1 AND 2 Prayer in WA(MD). 381/ 2019 : This Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order of Single Judge made in WP(MD) No.3726 of 2007 dated 26.02.2014 Prayer in WP(MD). 3726/ 2007 : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court To issue a Writ of Certiorarified, calling for the records comprised in the order of assessment as made in P AN/GIR No. AAR/2956N dated 21/12/2006 for the assessment year 2004-2005 on the file of the 3rd respndnet and pending before the 4th respndnet herein IIA.no. 631/06-07/CII(A)/ https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6 TRY/343, dated 29/0-1/2007 quashs the same and of assessment without reference to the provisions attached to section 4 fo the amendment act as the same is un - constitutional and invalid FOR PETITIONER : MR. R. KRISHNAMOORTHY FOR RESPONDENTS:MR. R. MURUGAPPAN FOR R2 WA(MD). 381/ 2019 : 1 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -II, NO.10, WILLIAMS ROAD, CANTONMENT, TIRUCHIRAPPALLI. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NO.4, WILLIAMS ROAD, CANTONMENT, TIRUCHIRAPPALLI. ..APPELLANT/RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4 – Vs. - 1 M/S.VEERA EXPORTERS REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, NO.72, VIVEKANANDA NAGAR, OPP.TO SENGUNTHAPURAM, MAIN ROAD, 11TH CROSS, KARUR. ..1ST RESPONDENT / PETITIONER 2 UNION OF INDIA REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI. 3 THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI. ..RESPONDENT 2 AND 3/RESPONDENT 1 AND 2 Prayer in WA(MD). 381/ 2019 : This Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order of Single Judge made in WP(MD) No.3726 of 2007 dated 26.02.2014 Prayer in WP(MD). 3726/ 2007 : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court To issue a Writ of Certiorarified, calling for the records comprised in the order of assessment as made in P AN/GIR No. AAR/2956N dated 21/12/2006 for the assessment year 2004-2005 on the file of the 3rd respndnet and pending before the 4th respndnet herein IIA.no. 631/06-07/CII(A)/ TRY/343, dated 29/0-1/2007 quashs the same and of assessment without reference to the provisions attached to section 4 fo the amendement act as the same is un - constitutional and invalid https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 7 FOR PETITIONER : MR. R. KRISHNAMOORTHY FOR RESPONDENTS: MR. R. MURUGAPPAN FOR R2 WA(MD). 382/ 2019 : 1 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -II, NO.10, WILLIAMS ROAD, CANTONMENT, TIRUCHIRAPPALLI. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NO.4, WILLIAMS ROAD, CANTONMENT, TIRUCHIRAPPALLI. ..APPELLANT/RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4 - Vs. - 1 M/S.VEERA EXPORTERS REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, NO.72, VIVEKANANDA NAGAR, OPP.TO SENGUNTHAPURAM, MAIN ROAD, 11TH CROSS, KARUR. ..1ST RESPONDENT/PETITIONER 2 UNION OF INDIA REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI. 3 THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI. ..RESPONDENT 2 AND 3/RESPONDENT 1 AND 2 Prayer in WA(MD). 382/ 2019 : This Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order of Single Judge made in WP(MD) No.3727 of 2007 dated 26.02.2014 Prayer in WP(MD). 3727/ 2007 : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court To issue a Writ of DECLARATION to declare the following conditions and restrictions introducted vide section 4- amending of section 80 HHC (3) (i), INcome Tax Act 1961, introudced vide Taxation laws Amendment act, 2005, ( act 55 of 2005 ) dated 28/12/2005- (a) he had on optioni to choose either the duty drawback or the Duty Entilement pass Book scheme , being duty remission scheme and (b) the rate of drawback credit attributable to the customs duty was higher thatn the rate of credit allowable under duty entilment passch scheme, being dury remission scheme as ultra vires and offending Articel 14,19(1)(g) and 300 A of the Constitution of India and Section 80 HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961. FOR PETITIONER : MR. R. KRISHNAMOORTHY FOR RESPONDENTS: MR. R. MURUGAPPAN FOR R2 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 8 WA(MD). 383/ 2019 : 1 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -II, NO.10, WILLIAMS ROAD, CANTONMENT, TIRUCHIRAPPALLI. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NO.4, WILLIAMS ROAD, CANTONMENT, TIRUCHIRAPPALLI. ..APPELLANT/RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4 - Vs. - 1 M/S.VEERA EXPORTERS REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, NO.72, VIVEKANANDA NAGAR, OPP.TO SENGUNTHAPURAM, MAIN ROAD, 11TH CROSS, KARUR. ..1ST RESPONDENT/PETITIONER 2 UNION OF INDIA REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI. 3 THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI. ..RESPONDENT 2 AND 3/RESPONDENT 1 AND 2 Prayer in WA(MD). 383/ 2019 : This Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order of Single Judge made in WP(MD) No.3728 of 2007 dated 26.02.2014. Prayer in WP(MD). 3728/ 2007 : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court To issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records comprised in the order in Appeal II a.No. 614/05-06 /172 for the assessment year 22003-2004 dated 31/10/2006, for the assessment year 2003-2004 on the file of the 4th respondnet, confirming the iorder of the 3rd respondnet in respect of PAN/GIR.No. AAAPv 2956N, dated 31/10/2006 quash the same and consequently direct the 3rd respndnet to pass fresh orders of assessment without reference to the provisions attached to section 4 of the amendment act as the same is un- constitutional and invalid. FOR PETITIONER : MR. R. KRISHNAMOORTHY FOR RESPONDENTS: MR.K. BALASUBRAMANIAN FOR R1 MR. R. MURUGAPPAN FOR R2 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 9 WA(MD). 384/ 2019 : THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-II, NO.44, WILLIAMS ROAD, TIRUCHIRAPPALLI. ..APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENTS - Vs. - 1 M/S.AMARAVATHY TEXTILES, P.B.NO.105, 9D/5, RAMAKRISHNAPURAM, KARUR-639 001, REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR M.SIVAKKANNAN. ..1ST RESPONDENT / PETITIONER 2 THE UNION OF INDIA, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI. 3 THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI. ..RESPONDENT 2 AND 3/RESPONDENT 1 AND 2 Prayer in WA(MD). 384/ 2019 :This Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order of Single Judge made in WP(MD) No.978 of 2007 dated 07.02.2014 Prayer in WP(MD). 978/ 2007 : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court To issue a Writ of Declaration, to declaring the following conditions and restrictions introduced vide section 4- Amendment of section 80 HHC (3) (i), Income Tax act 1961, introduced vide Taxation Laws Amendment Act, 2005 ( Act 55 of 2005) dated 28/12/2005- (a) he had an otion to choose either the duty drawback or the Duty entitlement pass book scheme, basiin Duty remission scheme and. (b)the Rate of drawback credit attributable to thecustoms duty was higher than the rate of credit allowance under Duty Entitlement Pass book Scheme, being Duty Remission Scheme. (a) he has an obtion to choos either the duty draw back or the Duty free Replenishment Scheme; and (b) the rate of drawback credit attributable to the Customes duty was higher than the rate of credit allowance under Duty free Replenishment Certificate, being Duty Remission Scheme. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 10 As Ultra vires and offending Articel 14,19(1)(G) AND 300 a of the Consitution of India and Section 80 HHC (3)(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. FOR PETITIONER : MR. R. KRISHNAMOORTHY FOR RESPONDENTS:MR. R. MURUGAPPAN FOR R2 WA(MD). 385/ 2019 : 1 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-II, NO.44, WILLIAMS ROAD, TIRUCHIRAPPALLI. ..APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENTS - Vs. - 1 M/S.AMARAVATHY TEXTILES, P.B.NO.105, 9D/5, RAMAKRISHNAPURAM, KARUR-639 001, REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR M.SIVAKKANNAN. ..1ST RESPONDENT/PETITIONER 2 THE UNION OF INDIA, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI. 3 THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI. ..RESPONDENT 2 AND 3/RESPONDENT 1 AND 2 Prayer in WA(MD). 385/ 2019 : This Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order of Single Judge made in WP(MD) No.979 of 2007 dated 07.02.2014 Prayer in WP(MD). 979/ 2007 : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court To issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records comprised in the order of assessment for the year assessment year 2004-2005 dated 11/12/2006 as made in PAN/GIR No. AAFFA9673E on the file of the 3rd respndent, quashs the same and consequently direct the 3rd respndnet to pass fresh orders of assessment without reference to the provisions attached to section 4 of the Amendment act as the same is unconstitutional and invalid https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 11 FOR PETITIONER : MR. R. KRISHNAMOORTHY FOR RESPONDENTS:MR. R. MURUGAPPAN FOR R2 WA(MD). 386/ 2019 : THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-II, NO.44, WILLIAMS ROAD, TIRUCHIRAPPALLI. ..APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENTS - Vs. - 1 M/S.RAM TEXTILES, N.H.7, NEW MADURAI BYPASS ROAD, KARUR, REP.BY ITS PARTNER, R.MANICKAVASAGAM. ..1ST RESPONDENT/PETITIONER 2 THE UNION OF INDIA, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI. 3 THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI. ..RESPONDENT 2 AND 3/RESPONDENT 1 AND 2 Prayer in WA(MD). 386/ 2019 : This Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order of Single Judge made in WP(MD) No.2900 of 2007 dated 07.02.2014 Prayer in WP(MD). 2900/ 2007 : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court To issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, or any other Writ, order of direction in the nature of a Writ of certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records comprised in the order of assessment as made in PAN/GIR No.AAAFR6579D, for the year Assessment year 2004-2005 dt:13/12/2006 on the file of the 3rd Respondent, quash the same, and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to pass fresh orders of assessment without reference to the previsions attached to section 4 of the Amendment Act as the same is unconstitutional and invalid. FOR PETITIONER : MR. R. KRISHNAMOORTHY FOR RESPONDENTS:MR. R. MURUGAPPAN FOR R2 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 12 WA(MD). 387/ 2019 1 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-II, NO.44, WILLIAMS ROAD, TIRUCHIRAPPALLI. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NO.4, WILLIAMS ROAD, CANTONMENT, TIRUCHIRAPPALLI. ..APPELLANT/RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4 – Vs. - 1 M/S.RAM TEXTILES, N.H.7, NEW MADURAI BYPASS ROAD, KARUR, REP.BY ITS PARTNER,R.MANICKAVASAGAM. ..1ST RESPONDENT / PETITIONER 2 THE UNION OF INDIA, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI. 3 THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI. ..RESPONDENT 2 AND 3/RESPONDENT 1 AND 2 Prayer in WA(MD). 387/ 2019 :This Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order of Single Judge made in WP(MD) No.2901 of 2007 dated 07.02.2014 Prayer in WP(MD). 2901/ 2007 : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court To issue a WRIT OF DECLARATION or any other Writ or order or direction in the nature of a WRIT OF DECLARATION, to declaring the following conditions and restrictions introduced vide section 4- Amendment of section 80HHC (3)(i),Income Tax Act,1961, introduced vide Taxation Laws Amendment Act, 2005(Act 55 of 2005) dt:28/12/2005 (a) he had an option to choose either the duty drawback or the Duty entitlement pass bookscheme, basin Duty remission scheme and (b) the rate of drawback credit attributable to the Cusoms duty was higher than the rate of credit allowance under Duty Entitlement Passbook Schem, being Duty Remission Scheme. (a) he has an option to choose either the duty drawback or the Duty free Replenishment scheme; and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 13 (b) the rate of drawback credit aattributable tothe Customs duty was higher than the rate of credit allowance under Duty free Replenishment Certificate, being Duty Remission scheme as ultra vires and offending Articel 14,19(1)(g) and 300A of the Constitution of Indiaand Section 80HHC (3)(1) of the Income tax Act, 1961. FOR PETITIONER : MR. R. KRISHNAMOORTHY FOR RESPONDENTS:MR. R. MURUGAPPAN FOR R2 WA(MD). 388/ 2019 1 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-II, NO.44, WILLIAMS ROAD, TIRUCHIRAPPALLI. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NO.4, WILLIAMS ROAD, CANTONMENT, TIRUCHIRAPPALLI ..APPELLANT/RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4 - Vs. - 1 M/S.BALAJI FABRICS, REP.BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, NO.117-1, KAMARAJAPURAM NORTH, KARUR. ..1ST RESPONDENT / PETITIONER 2 THE UNION OF INDIA, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI. 3 THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI. 4 THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJAJI BHAVAN, BESANT NAGAR, CHENNAI. ..RESPONDENT 2 TO 4/RESPONDENT 1, 2 & 5 Prayer in WA(MD). 388/ 2019 : This Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order of Single Judge made in WP(MD) No.4234 of 200,7 dated 07.02.2014 Prayer in WP(MD). 4234/ 2007 : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court To issue a writ of Declaration, to declare the following conditions and restrictions introduced vide Section 4 Amending of Section 80 HHC(3)(i), Income https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 14 Tax Act 1961, introduced vide Taxation Laws Amendment Act, 2005 (Act 55 of 2005) dated 28.12.2005. (a) he had an option to choose either the duty drawback or the Duty entitlement pass bookscheme, basin Duty remission scheme and (b) the rate of drawback credit attributable to the Cusoms duty was higher than the rate of credit allowance under Duty Entitlement Passbook Schem, being Duty Remission Scheme. (a) he has an option to choose either the duty drawback or the Duty free Replenishment scheme; and (b) the rate of drawback credit aattributable tothe Customs duty was higher than the rate of credit allowance under Duty free Replenishment Certificate, being Duty Remission scheme as ultra vires and offending Articel 14,19(1)(g) and 300A of the Constitution of Indiaand Section 80HHC (3)(1) of the Income tax Act, 1961. FOR PETITIONER : MR. R. KRISHNAMOORTHY FOR RESPONDENTS:MR. R. MURUGAPPAN FOR R2 WA(MD). 389/ 2019 : 1 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-II, NO.44, WILLIAMS ROAD, TIRUCHIRAPPALLI. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NO.4, WILLIAMS ROAD, CANTONMENT, TIRUCHIRAPPALLI ..APPELLANT/RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4 - Vs. - 1 M/S.BALAJI FABRICS, REP.BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, NO.117-1, KAMARAJAPURAM NORTH, KARUR. ..1ST RESPONDENT/PETITIONER 2 THE UNION OF INDIA, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI. 3 THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI. 4 THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJAJI BHAVAN, BESANT NAGAR, CHENNAI. ..RESPONDENT 2 TO 4/RESPONDENT 1, 2 & 5 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 15 Prayer in WA(MD). 389/ 2019 : This Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order of Single Judge made in WP(MD) No.4233 of 200,7 dated 07.02.2014 Prayer in WP(MD). 4233/ 2007 : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court To issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records comprised in the order in Appeal ITA No.31/06-07/314 dated 26.12.2006 for the assessment year 2003-2004 on the file of the 4th respondent confirming the order of the 3rd respondent herein in respect of PAN/GIR AAAFB 4781 F on 24.3.2006 and pending before the 5th respondent herein, quash the same and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to pass fresh orders of assessment without reference to the provisions attached to Sec. 4 of the Amendment Act as the same is unconstitutional and invaid. FOR PETITIONER : MR. R. KRISHNAMOORTHY FOR RESPONDENTS:MR. R. MURUGAPPAN FOR R2 WA(MD). 390/ 2019 1 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE II, NO.44, WILLIAMS ROAD, TIRUCHIRAPPALLI. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NO.4, WILLIAMS ROAD, CANTONMENT, TIRUCHIRAPPALLI. ..APPELLANT/RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4 - Vs. - 1 M/S.RAM TEXTILES, NH 7, NEW MADURAI BYEPASS ROAD, KARUR, REP BY ITS PARTNER, R.MANICKAVASAGAM. ..1ST RESPONDENT/PETITIONER 2 THE UNION OF INDIA, REP BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI. 3 THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI. 4 THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJAJI BHAVAN, BESANT NAGAR, CHENNAI. ..RESPONDENT 2 TO 4/RESPONDENT 1, 2 & 5 Prayer in WA(MD). 390/ 2019 :This Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order of Single Judge made in WP(MD) No.2899 200,7 dated 07.02.2014 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 16 Prayer in WP(MD). 2899/ 2007 : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court To issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus or any other writ or order or direction in the nature of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records comprised in the order of Appeal No.ITA No.51/06-07/196 for the assessment year 2003-2004 dated 16/10/2006 on the file of the 4th respondent, confirming the order of the 3rd respondent as made in PAN/GIR No.AAAFR6579D/20 FR 8 dt:22/03/2006, to Quash the same consequently direct the 3rd respondent to passfresh orders of amendment without reference to the previsions atached to section 4 of the Amendment Act as the samd is un consitutitonal and invalid. FOR PETITIONER : MR. R. KRISHNAMOORTHY FOR RESPONDENTS:MR. R. MURUGAPPAN FOR R2 WA(MD). 391/ 2019 : THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE II, NO.44, WILLIAMS ROAD, TIRUCHIRAPPALLI. ..APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENTS Vs. - 1 M/S.SYNTHESIS, REP BY ITS PARTNER, MR.P.SUDHAKAR, NO.14, RAMAKRISHNAPURAM EAST, KARUR. ..1ST RESPONDENT/PETITIONER 2 THE UNION OF INDIA, REP BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI. 3 THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI. ..RESPONDENT 2 AND 3/RESPONDENT 1 AND 2 Prayer in WA(MD). 391/ 2019 : This Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order of Single Judge made in WP(MD) No.10012 of 2007 dated 07.02.2014 Prayer in WP(MD). 10012/ 2007 : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court To issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records comprised in Assessment order in respect of PAN/GIR, AALFS6363A/Cir-II/-7-08/TRY dated 21/05/2007, for the assessment year 2004-05 on the file of the 3rd respnodent, quash the same. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 17 FOR PETITIONER : MR. R. KRISHNAMOORTHY FOR RESPONDENTS:MR. R. MURUGAPPAN FOR R2 WA(MD). 392/ 2019 : 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD I (2), KARUR. 2 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE II, NO.44, WILLIAMS ROAD, TIRUCHIRAPPALLI ..APPELLANT/RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4 – Vs. - 1 M/S.SABARE INTERNATIONAL LTD, (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SABARE GARMENTS ) REP BY ITS G.M.FINANCE, C.RAJAGOPAL, S.F.NO.6/1, NEDUNGUR VILLAGE, K.PARAMATHI, KARUR 639 111. ..1ST RESPONDENT/PETITIONER 2 THE UNION OF INDIA, REP BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI. 3 THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI. ..RESPONDENT 2 AND 3/RESPONDENT 1 AND 2 Prayer in WA(MD). 392/ 2019 : This Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order of Single Judge made in WP(MD) No.10012 of 2007 dated 07.02.2014 Prayer in WP(MD). 10012/ 2007 : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court To issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records comprised in Assessment order in respect of PAN/GIR, AALFS6363A/Cir-II/-7-08/TRY dated 21/05/2007, for the assessment year 2004-05 on the file of the 3rd respnodent, quash the same. FOR PETITIONER : MR. R. KRISHNAMOORTHY FOR RESPONDENTS:MR. R. MURUGAPPAN FOR R2 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 18 WA(MD). 393/ 2019 : 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD I (2), KARUR. 2 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE II, NO.44, WILLIAMS ROAD, TIRUCHIRAPPALLI. ..APPELLANT/RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4 - Vs. - 1 M/S.SABARE INTERNATIONAL LTD, (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SABARE GARMENTS) REP BY ITS G.M.FINANCE, C.RAJAGOPAL, S.F.NO.6/1, NEDUNGUR VILLAGE, K.PARAMATHI, KARUR 639 111. ..1ST RESPONDENT/PETITIONER 2 THE UNION OF INDIA, REP BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI. 3 THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI. ..RESPONDENT 2 AND 3/RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 Prayer in WA(MD). 393/ 2019 : This Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order of Single Judge made in WP(MD) No.10014 of 2007 dated 07.02.2014 Prayer in WP(MD). 10014/ 2007 : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court To issue a writ of Certiorari calling for the records comprised in Assessment order in respect of PAN/GIR No.AAAFS9189E dated 21.5.2007 for the assessment year 2004-05 on the file of the 4th respondent quash the same. FOR PETITIONER : MR. R. KRISHNAMOORTHY FOR RESPONDENTS:MR. R. MURUGAPPAN FOR R2 WA(MD). 394/ 2019 : THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE II, NO.44, WILLIAMS ROAD, TIRUCHIRAPPALLI. ..APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENTS - Vs. - https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 19 1 M/S.V.T.IMPEX, REP BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, VEERAPUTHRAN, NO.634, ALWIN NAGAR, KARUR. ..1ST RESPONDENT/PETITIONER 2 THE UNION OF INDIA, REP BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI. 3 THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI. ..RESPONDENT 2 AND 3/RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 Prayer in WA(MD). 394/ 2019 :This Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order of Single Judge made in WP(MD) No.748 of 2008 dated 07.02.2014 Prayer in WP(MD). 748/ 2008 : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to declaring the following conditions and restrictions introduced vide section 4 of Amendment of Section 80HHC (3)(i) Income Tax act 1961, introduced vide taxation Laws Amendment Act, 2005(Act 55 of 2005) dated 28/12/2005. (a) he had an option to choose either the duty drawback or the Duty entitlement pass bookscheme, basin Duty remission scheme and (b) the rate of drawback credit attributable to the Cusoms duty was higher than the rate of credit allowance under Duty Entitlement Passbook Schem, being Duty Remission Scheme. (a) he has an option to choose either the duty drawback or the Duty free Replenishment scheme; and (b) the rate of drawback credit aattributable tothe Customs duty was higher than the rate of credit allowance under Duty free Replenishment Certificate, being Duty Remission scheme as ultra vires and offending Articel 14,19(1)(g) and 300A of the Constitution of Indiaand Section 80HHC (3)(1) of the Income tax Act, 1961. FOR PETITIONER : MR. R. KRISHNAMOORTHY FOR RESPONDENTS:MR. R. MURUGAPPAN FOR R2 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 20 WA(MD). 395/ 2019 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE II, NO.44, WILLIAMS ROAD, TIRUCHIRAPPALLI. ..APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENTS Vs. - 1 M/S.V.T.IMPEX, REP BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, VEERAPUTHRAN, NO.634, ALWIN NAGAR, KARUR. ..1st RESPONDENT/PETITIONER 2 THE UNION OF INDIA, REP BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI. 3 THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI. ... Respondents 2 AND 3/RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 Prayer in WA(MD). 395/ 2019 :This Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order of Single Judge made in WP(MD) No.748 of 2008 dated 07.02.2014 Prayer in WP(MD). 748/ 2008 : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certioraricalling forthe records comprised in Assessment order in respect of PAN/GIR No.AAFV4399M FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 DATED 19/11/2007 on the file of the 3rd Respondent quash the same and demand notice u/s. 156 of the Income Tax Act, 1951, datd 19.11.2007. FOR PETITIONER : MR. R. KRISHNAMOORTHY FOR RESPONDENTS:MR. R. MURUGAPPAN FOR R2 WA(MD). 396/ 2019 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE II, NO.44, WILLIAMS ROAD, TIRUCHIRAPPALLI. ..APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT - Vs. - https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 21 1 M/S.GIRI TEX, REP BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, P.SIVASUBRAMANIYAN, NO.3A, PUGALUR ROAD, KARUR. ..1ST RESPONDENT/PETITIONER 2 THE UNION OF INDIA, REP BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI. 3 THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI. ..RESPONDENT 2 AND 3/RESPONDENT 1 AND 2 Prayer in WA(MD). 396/ 2019 :This Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order of Single Judge made in WP(MD) No.909 of 2008 dated 07.02.2014. Prayer in WP(MD). 909/ 2008 : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to declaring the following conditions and restrictions introduced vide section 4 of Amendment of Section 80HHC (3)(i) Income Tax act 1961, introduced vide taxation Laws Amendment Act, 2005(Act 55 of 2005) dated 28/12/2005. (a) he had an option to choose either the duty drawback or the Duty entitlement pass bookscheme, basin Duty remission scheme and (b) the rate of drawback credit attributable to the Cusoms duty was higher than the rate of credit allowance under Duty Entitlement Passbook Schem, being Duty Remission Scheme. (a) he has an option to choose either the duty drawback or the Duty free Replenishment scheme; and (b) the rate of drawback credit aattributable tothe Customs duty was higher than the rate of credit allowance under Duty free Replenishment Certificate, being Duty Remission scheme as ultra vires and offending Articel 14,19(1)(g) and 300A of the Constitution of Indiaand Section 80HHC (3)(1) of the Income tax Act, 1961. FOR PETITIONER : MR. R. KRISHNAMOORTHY FOR RESPONDENTS:MR. R. MURUGAPPAN FOR R2 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 22 WA(MD). 397/ 2019 : THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-II, NO.44, WILLIAMS ROAD, TIRUCHIRAPPALLI. ..APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENTS - Vs. - 1 M/S.GIRI TEX, REP.BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, P.SIVASUBRAMANIYAN, NO.3A, PUGALUR ROAD, KARUR. ..1ST RESPONDENT/PETITIONER 2 THE UNION OF INDIA, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI. 3 THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI. ..RESPONDENT 2 AND 3/RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 Prayer in WA(MD). 397/ 2019 : This Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order of Single Judge made in WP(MD)No 910 of 2008 dated 07.02.2014 Prayer in WP(MD). 910/ 2008 : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court To issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records comprisedin the Assessment order in respect of the PAN GIR.No. AAAFG2116R for the assessment year 2001-2002 dated 16/11/2007 on the file of the 3rd respondent and quash the demand notice u/s. 156 of the Income Tax Act 1961, dated 16//11/2007. FOR PETITIONER : MR. R. KRISHNAMOORTHY FOR RESPONDENTS: MR. R. MURUGAPPAN FOR R2 WA(MD). 398/ 2019 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-II, NO.44, WILLIAMS ROAD, TIRUCHIRAPPALLI. ..APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENTS - Vs. - 1 M/S.GIRI TEX, REP.BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, P.SIVASUBRAMANIYAN, NO.3A, PUGALUR ROAD, KARUR. ..1ST RESPONDENT/PETITIONER https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 23 2 THE UNION OF INDIA, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI. 3 THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI. ..RESPONDENT 2 AND 3/RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 Prayer in WA(MD). 398/ 2019 : This Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order of Single Judge made in WP(MD)No 911 of 2008 dated 07.02.2014 Prayer in WP(MD). 911/ 2008 : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court To issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records comprised in the Assessment order in respect of the PAN GIR No. AAAFG2116R for the assessment year 2002-2003 dated 07/12/2007 on the files of the 3rd respondent and quash the demand notice u/s. 156 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 07/12/2007 and quash the same. FOR PETITIONER : MR. R. KRISHNAMOORTHY FOR RESPONDENTS: MR. R. MURUGAPPAN FOR R2 WA(MD). 399/ 2019 1 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-II, NO.44, WILLIAMS ROAD, TIRUCHIRAPPALLI. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NO.4, WILLIAMS ROAD, CANTONMENT, TRIUCHIRAPPALLI. ..APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4 - Vs. - 1 M/S.GOLDLINE EXPORTS REP.BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, M.SELVAM, NO.32, KAMARAJAPURAM WEST, KARUR. ..1ST RESPONDENT/PETITIONER 2 THE UNION OF INDIA, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI. 3 THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI. ..RESPONDENT 2 AND 3/RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 24 Prayer in WA(MD). 399/ 2019 :This Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order of Single Judge made in WP(MD)No 2927 of 2008 dated 07.02.2014 Prayer in WP(MD). 2927/ 2008 : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court To issue a writ of Certiorari, calling for the records comprised in the Assessment Order in respect of the PAN GIR No.AAAFG 4435 H for the assessment year 2002-2003 dated 5.11.2007 on the files of the 3rd respondent pending before the 4th respondent herein and the consequential demand notice u/s 156 of the Income Tax Act, 1951 dated 5.11.2007 issued by the 3rd respondent herein, and quash the same. FOR PETITIONER : MR. R. KRISHNAMOORTHY FOR RESPONDENTS: MR. R. MURUGAPPAN FOR R2 WA(MD). 400/ 2019 : 1 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-II, NO.44, WILLIAMS ROAD, TIRUCHIRAPPALLI. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NO.4, WILLIAMS ROAD, CANTONMENT, TRIUCHIRAPPALLI. ... Petitioners - Vs. - 1 M/S.GOLDLINE EXPORTS REP.BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, M.SELVAM, NO.32, KAMARAJAPURAM WEST, KARUR. ..1ST RESPONDENT/PETITIONER 2 THE UNION OF INDIA, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI. ..RESPONDENT 2 /RESPONDENT 1 3 THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI. ..RESPONDENT 2 AND 3/RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 Prayer in WA(MD). 400/ 2019 :This Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order of Single Judge made in WP(MD)No 2298 of 2008 dated 07.02.2014 Prayer in WP(MD). 2928/ 2008 : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court To issue a writ https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 25 of Declaration, to declaring the following conditions and restrictions introduced vide Section 4 - Amendment of Section 80 HHC (3)(i) Income Tax Act, 1961, introduced vide Taxation Laws Amendment Act, 2005 (Act 55 of 2005) dated 28.12.2005- (a) he had an option to choose either the duty drawback or the Duty entitlement pass bookscheme, basin Duty remission scheme and (b) the rate of drawback credit attributable to the Cusoms duty was higher than the rate of credit allowance under Duty Entitlement Passbook Schem, being Duty Remission Scheme. (a) he has an option to choose either the duty drawback or the Duty free Replenishment scheme; and (b) the rate of drawback credit aattributable tothe Customs duty was higher than the rate of credit allowance under Duty free Replenishment Certificate, being Duty Remission scheme as ultra vires and offending Articel 14,19(1)(g) and 300A of the Constitution of Indiaand Section 80HHC (3)(1) of the Income tax Act, 1961. FOR PETITIONER : MR. R. KRISHNAMOORTHY FOR RESPONDENTS: MR. R. MURUGAPPAN FOR R2 WA(MD). 401/ 2019 1 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-II, NO.44, WILLIAMS ROAD, TIRUCHIRAPPALLI. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NO.4, WILLIAMS ROAD, CANTONMENT, TRIUCHIRAPPALLI. ..APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4 - Vs. - 1 M/S.GOLDLINE EXPORTS REP.BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, M.SELVAM, NO.32, KAMARAJAPURAM WEST, KARUR. ..1ST RESPONDENT/PETITIONER 2 THE UNION OF INDIA, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI. 3 THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI. ..RESPONDENT 2 AND 3/RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 26 Prayer in WA(MD). 401/ 2019 :This Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order of Single Judge made in WP(MD)No 5957 of 2009 dated 07.02.2014 Prayer in WP(MD). 5957/ 2009 : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court To issue a Writ of Declaration of Declaration, to declaring the following conditions and restrictions introduced vide Section 4- Amendment of section 80HHC (3) (i) Income Tax Act, 1961, introduced vide Taxation Laws amendment Act, 2005(Act 55 of 2005) dated 28/12/2005 (a) he had an option to choose either the duty drawback or the Duty entitlement pass bookscheme, basin Duty remission scheme and (b) the rate of drawback credit attributable to the Cusoms duty was higher than the rate of credit allowance under Duty Entitlement Passbook Schem, being Duty Remission Scheme. (a) he has an option to choose either the duty drawback or the Duty free Replenishment scheme; and (b) the rate of drawback credit aattributable tothe Customs duty was higher than the rate of credit allowance under Duty free Replenishment Certificate, being Duty Remission scheme as ultra vires and offending Articel 14,19(1)(g) and 300A of the Constitution of Indiaand Section 80HHC (3)(1) of the Income tax Act, 1961. FOR PETITIONER : MR. R. KRISHNAMOORTHY FOR RESPONDENTS: MR. R. MURUGAPPAN FOR R2 WA(MD). 402/ 2019 : 1 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-II, NO.44, WILLIAMS ROAD, TIRUCHIRAPPALLI. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NO.4, WILLIAMS ROAD, CANTONMENT, TRIUCHIRAPPALLI. ..APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4 - Vs. - 1 M/S.GOLDLINE EXPORTS REP.BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, M.SELVAM, NO.32, KAMARAJAPURAM WEST, KARUR. ..1ST RESPONDENT/PETITIONER https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 27 2 THE UNION OF INDIA, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI. 3 THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI. ..RESPONDENT 2 AND 3/RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 Prayer in WA(MD). 402/ 2019 :This Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order of Single Judge made in WP(MD)No 5956 of 2009 dated 07.02.2014 Prayer in WP(MD). 5956/ 2009 : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court To issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records comprised in the Assessment order in respect of the PAN GIR No. AAA FJ 4435 H for the assessment year 2004-2005 dated 06/12/2006 on the files of the 3rd respondent , pending before the 4th respondent herein, and quash the same. FOR PETITIONER : MR. R. KRISHNAMOORTHY FOR RESPONDENTS: MR. R. MURUGAPPAN FOR R2 COMMON JUDGEMENT (Judgement of the Court was delivered by Dr.VINEET KOTHARI,J.) Heard the learned counsels on either side. 2.The controversy involved in the present Writ Appeals revolve around the benefit of deduction in respect of export business under Section 80 HHC of the Income Tax Act, particularly against the proviso inserted in Section 80HHC by the Taxation Law (Amendment Act, 2005) with retrospective effect on 01.04.1998. The said proviso reads as under – \"Deduction in respect of profits retained for export business. 80HHC - (1) Where an assessee, being an Indian company or a person (other than a company) resident in India, is engaged in the business of export out of India of any goods or merchandise to which this section applies, there shall, in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this section, be allowed, in computing the total income of the assessee, [a deduction to the extent of profits, referred to in sub-section (1B)] derived by the assessee from the export of such goods or merhandise: ... https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 28 Provided further that in the case of an assessee having export turnover not exceeding rupees ten crores during the previous year, the profits computed under clause (d) or clause (b) or clause (c) of this sub-section or after giving effect to the first proviso, as the case may be, shall be further increased by the amount which bears to ninety per cent of any sum referred to in clause (iiid) or clause (iiie) as the case may be, of section 28, the same proportion as the export turnover bears to the total turnover of the business carried on by the assessee.\" 3.Since the large number of petitions were filed in various High Courts upon a transfer petition, the Hon’ble Apex Court transferred all the matters to the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court to be decided there. Accordingly, the Gujarat High Court decided the said matters on 02.07.2012 and following the same, the Learned Single Judge of this Court disposed of the Writ petitions with the following observations: \"In all these Writ petitions, the Taxation Laws Amendment Act, 2005 in respect of insertion of Clause (iiid) and (iiie) proviso to Section 28 and the insertion of the third and fourth proviso to Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is challenged as ultra vires and unconstitutional. 2.Similar matters, challenging the retrospective effect of the Amendment, came to be filed before various High Courts. As a result, Transfer Petition (C) No.703 of 2011 came to be filed before the Hon'ble Apex Court for transferring all the matters before one and the same Court. To avoid conflicting judgments by various High Courts and multiplicity of the proceedings, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, by an order dated 03.04.2012, allowed the transfer petition by transferring all the matters to the High Court of Gujarat. A Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court has, by order dated 02.07.2012, disposed of all the Writ petitions in the following terms: “25.On consideration of the entire materials on record, we, therefore, find substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned amendment is violative for its retrospective operation in order to overcome the decision of the Tribunal, and at the same time, for depriving the benefit earlier granted to a class of the assessees whose assessments were still pending although such benefit will be available to the assesses whose assessments have already been concluded. In other words, in this type of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 29 substantive amendment, retrospective operation can be given only if it is for the benefit of the assessee but not in a case where it affects even a fewer section of the assessee. 27.We, accordingly, quash the impugned amendment only to this 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 of the assessees whose export turnover is above Rs.10 Crore. In other words, the retrospective amendment should not be detrimental to any of the assessee.” 3.It is admitted that the issue involved in the present Writ petitions are identical to the writ petitions which were disposed of by the Gujarat High Court. Keeping in mind that the Supreme Court has transferred all the matters to the Gujarat High Court to avoid conflicting judgments, I am of the view that it would be appropriate to follow the decision of Division Bench of Gujarat High Court in these writ petitions. 4.For the above reasons, all the writ petitions stand disposed of in terms of the Division Bench judgment of the Gujarat High Court by quashing the retrospective effect of the amendment as follows: In the result, the impugned amendments are quashed 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 of the assessees, whose export turn over is above Rs.10 Crores. In other words, the retrospective amendment should not be deterimental to any of the assessee. Consequently, the impugned assessment orders stand quashed and the respondents are directed to issue fresh assessment orders, if warranted, without reference to the proviso to Section 4 of the Amendment Act. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.” 4.Against the said decision of the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court, the Union of India approached the Apex Court by way of a Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.9273 of 2013 and the same was disposed of by the Apex Court on 30th March, 2015, upholding the order passed by the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court with the following modification, which is quoted in extenso, as under: \"1.Amendment to Section 80HHC(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) was made by the Taxation Laws (Second Amendment) Act, 2005 with retrospective effect ie., https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 30 with effect from 1st April 1992. By this amendment certain benefits were in fact extended to the exporters who are entitled to claim according to Section 80HHC of the Act. However, at the same time, the amendment also carved out two categories of exporters, namely, those whose export is less than Rs.10 Crores per year and those exporters whose exports turn over is more than Rs.10 Crores per annum. Insofar as entitlement of these benefits to the exporter having turn over of more than Rs.10 Crores p.a.is concerned, two conditions contained in third and fourth proviso to the said amendment were to be satisfied for claiming the benefits. Those were: (a)he has an option to choose either the duty drawback or the Duty Entitlement Pass Book Scheme, being the Duty Remission Scheme; and (b)the rate of drawback credit attributable to the customs duty was higher than the rate of credit allowable under the Duty Entitlement Pass Book Scheme, being Duty Remission Scheme. 2.All the Respondents in these SLPs, who are the exporters, belong to the second category. They filed the Writ petitions challenging conditions mentioned in third and fourth proviso to Section 80HHC(3). In fact it was their precise contention that these conditions are severable and therefore, these two conditions should be declared ultra vires and severed. The rationale behind seeking such a prayer was obvious inasmuch as the Writ petitioners did not went entire Notification to be declared ultra vires which was to their advantage. What they wanted was that the benefit of amended provision be accorded, without insisting on the aforesaid conditions. 3.The High Court vide impugned judgment has decided the issue in favour of the writ petitioners by concluding as under: 26.On consideration of the entire materials on record, we, therefore, find substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned amendment is violative for its retrospective operation in order to overcome the decision of the Tribunal, and at the same time, for depriving the benefit earlier granted to a class of the Assesses whose assessments were still pending although such benefit will be available to the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 31 Assessees whose assessments have already been concluded. In other words, in this type of substantive amendment, retrospective operation can be given only if it is for the benefit of the Assessee but not in a case where it affects even a fewer section of the Assessees. 27.We, accordingly, quash the impugned amendment only to this extent that the operation of the said section could be given effect from the date of amendment and not in respect of earlier assessment years of the Assesses whose export turnover is above Rs.10 crores. In other words, the retrospective amendment should not be detrimental to any of the Assessees. 4.Against the High Court judgment these SLPs are filed by the Union of India. Mr.Mukul Rohtagi, learned Attorney General for India submits that once the prayer made was to severe the aforesaid two conditions as onerous and ultra vires, the High Court should have couched the relies in terms of that prayer only, instead of stating that the operation of the Section would be given effect to prospectively only and these conditions would not operate retrospectively. At the same time, he accepts that the legal position would be that those exporters with turnover of rupees less than Rs.10 crores and other like the respondents with turn over of more than Rs.10 crores would be at par and both would be entitled to the benefits. 5.We find that in essence the High Court has quashed the severable part of third and fourth proviso to Section 80HHC (3) and it becomes clear therefrom that challenge which was laid to the conditions contained in the said provisos by the respondent has succeeded. However, to make the position crystal clear, we substitute the direction of the High Court with the following direction: 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 crores should be treated similarly. This order is in substitution of the judgment in appeal. 6.With the aforesaid clarification all these SLPs including that of assessees filed against the judgment of M.P.High Court are disposed of.” https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 32 6.In view of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court, the present controversy is no longer res intergra and therefore, the present Writ Appeals filed by the Union of India – Income Tax Department, also deserves to be disposed of on same terms. Accordingly, we dispose of the present Writ Appeals in same terms. No order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CS III) // True Copy // Sub Assistant Registrar(CS ) Nbj TO: 1.THE SECRETARY TO THEMINESTARY OF FINANCE UNION OF INDIA, GOVERNMENTOF INDIA, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI. 2.THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK,NEW DELHI. 3.THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJAJI BHAVAN, BESANT NAGAR, CHENNAI. TR 24/05/2019 32 P/ 4C W.A.(MD)Nos.377 to 402 of 2019 27.03.2019 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "