Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Madras High Court
  4. /
  5. 2017
  6. /
  7. January

M/S.Arthanari Clothig Pvt. Ltd vs Union Of India

Madras High Court|12 September, 2017

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Heard Mr.S.Rajasekar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.A.P.Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.
2.The petitioner has come forward with this Writ Petition for issuance of Writ of Declaration to declare Sections 115 WA (2) and 115 WB (1) and 115 WB (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as introduced by the Finance Act, 2005 is ultra vires of Article 14, 19(1)(g) and 265 of the Constitution of India and as beyond the legislative competence of Parliament, in so far as the petitioner is concerned.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that the declaration sought for in this Writ Petition has been now seized of by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and similar Writ Petition has been transferred to the Hon'ble Supreme Court from the other High Courts as well.
4.Thus, considering the fact that the matter is now seized of by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Writ Petition can be disposed of with appropriate directions, leaving it open to the parties i.e. the petitioner as well as the Revenue to abide by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
5.The learned counsel for the Revenue expressed an apprehension that in the event the Hon'ble Supreme Court uphold the provisions as being a valid piece of legislation, then the assessee like the petitioner should not plead that the action that may be initiated by the Department or in the process of being initiated, is barred by limitation.
6.The Revenue need not have any apprehension in this regard, as the Court proposes to safeguard the interest of the Revenue by passing the following orders: "The petitioner is directed to abide by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court where the challenge to the impugned provisions are pending. It is made clear that in the event the Hon'ble Supreme Court T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J sli upholds the impugned legislation and the Department initiates action or proceeds with the action already initiated, the petitioner/assessee is not entitled to plead limitation and the period during which this Writ Petition is pending as well as the period till the matter is decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, shall stand excluded for computation of limitation.
7. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
12.09.2017 sli Index:yes/No Internet:yes Speaking order/Non speaking order To
1. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI - 110 001.
2. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI -110 001.
3. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, COMPANY RANGE 1, ACIT, CHENNAI.
W.P.No.6349 of 2006
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

M/S.Arthanari Clothig Pvt. Ltd vs Union Of India

Court

Madras High Court

JudgmentDate
12 September, 2017