M/s Ushodaya Enterprises Limited, A Public V. Union of India, rep by Secretary,

WP/25022/2005

AI Insights

M/s Ushodaya Enterprises Limited filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the Union of India and other respondents, challenging the provisions of Section 115WC and Section 115WB(2)(D) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner argued that these provisions were arbitrary, discriminatory, and violated Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, as they treated the petitioner unfairly compared to other industries that received concessionary benefits. The High Court heard the arguments and noted the government's subsequent amendment to the Income-Tax Act, which abolished the contested Fringe Benefit Tax, leading to the disposal of the petition.

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 687850 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 29-01-2010
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961, Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR; J V PRASAD
• Assessee Lawyers: B CHANDRASEN REDDY
• Keywords: Arbitrary; Discriminatory; Fringe benefit tax; Violative; Writ of Mandamus; Articles 14, 19(1)(g)
• Section: 115WC; 115WB(2)(D); 11SWM

Judgement Text

"[ 3386 ] THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY Betwee n: M/s Ushodaya Enterprises Limited, A Public, Limited Company, Incorporated under the Provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 Having its Registered office at 6-3-570, Eenadu Complex, Somajiguda, Hyderabad, rep by director Mr. A. Ram l rlohan Rao ...pETrroNER AND 1. Union of lndia, rep by Secretary,, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi 2. The Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax,, AP-|, Aayakar Bhavan, Hyderabad 3. The Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax,, Circle 3 (3), Aayakar Bhavan, HYderabad ...RES'.NDENT' Petition under Article 226 o'f the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction rnore particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus- a) Declaring the provision contained in the Section 115 WC of the lncome Tax, Act, considering z)\"k as the value of the fringe benefits to the petitioner for the purpose of computation of FBT under the head of conveyance, tours and travels and use of hotel boarding and lodging facilities, Services of Hospitality repair running and maintaining of motors and aircrafts, as being arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 1a, 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of lndia and treat the petitioner in parity with the industries which are given concessionary benefits of 50% b) Declaring the provision contained rn Section 1 1sWB (2) (D) of the lncome Tax Act, in depriving the benefits in respect of sales promotion including publicity and business promotion to the petitioner, as provided the concessionary benefits in respect of expenditure of hospitality to the hotel industry, for HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WRIT PETITION NO: 25022 OF 200s I maintenance of motor cars to transporters, expenditure f,)r maint--nE nce of aircraft to Aircraft Carriers, as being arbitrary, discrlnrinatory anc violalive of Article 14,19 (1 Xg) of the Constitution of lndia and treat the petitic ner on parity with other businesses by extendirg the concessionary benefits to the petilio ler l.A. NO: 1 OF 2005(Wl)l!lP. NO: 32175 OF 2005) Petition under S ection 151 CPC praying that in thr: circLmstalces stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may tre pleased to direct the respondents to acoept payment of Fringe Benefit Tax cons dr:ring the value of fringe benefit @ 5% in,;tead of 20% pending disposal of tire wrjt p,:tition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI B. CHANDRASEN REDDY Counsel for Respondcnt No. 1: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GE:NER/ L Ot: INDIA Counsel for Respondcnt Nos. 2 & 3: SRI J. V. PRASAD, SENIOR SC FOR INCOTIIE TAX The Court made the fc llowing: ORDER I THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSITY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY WRIT PETITION No.25O22 of 2OO5 ORDER: (per I lon'ble Si .htsti. e P.SAM KOSHY) . Heard Sri B. Chandrasen Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in this writ petition, Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Dy. Solicitor General of India representing respondent No.1 and Sri. J.V.Prasad, learned senior standing counsel for the Income Tax Department representing respondent Nos.2 and 3. 2. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly brought to the notice of this court, the Circular No.2 of 2010 dated 29.O1.2O1O, whereby, the Government has inserted a new section 11SWM in the Income- tax Act, 1961 abolishing the Fringe Benefit Tax on the value of certain fringe benefits containing in Chapter XII-H (Sections 1 15W to i 1 sWL) of the Income-tax Act, 196 1 . 3. In view of the said circular issued by the Government abolishing the fringe benelit tax by amending the Income-Tax Act, 1961, the grievance of the petitioner does not survive any further and the writ petition therefore is liable to be disposed of accordingly. I I I 1 The ,'vrit l)etition accordingll stands dir;pose d of No order as to costs. Consequently, misceilaneous petitions' perrding' if any' shall stand clos ed. ,TRUE COPY// 1. 2. J, 4. I /BC To, GJP L :JD/. G. SIREESHA ASSIS'-ADIT REGISTRAR (il) SECIION OFFICER One CC to Sri 3 Chandrasen Reddy Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri 3adi Praveen Kumar. Deputy Solicitor Gerrer-al ,:f lndia [OPUC] One CC to Sri J. V. Prasad , Senior SC for lncome Tax(CtPJC' Two CD Copie; I HIGH COURT DI TE ): 1010812O23 r I .- :-,J : ORDER WP.l{o.25')22 of 2005 DISPOSING OF THE WRII-F'ETITION WITHOU-T COSTS 'a ;-' ..)' 2m 5EP 1',} S 1' n ..1.i: 1 1 ,. i t C r ^ "