M/S.rishab Impex v. Additional Commissioner Ofincome Tax & Anr

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.638 OF 2009 Rolson International..Petitionerversus Union of India & Anr...Respondent ..Petitioner -------- WITH WRIT PETITION NO.640 OF 2009 M/s.Rishab Impex ..Petitioner versus Additional Commissioner ofIncome Tax & Anr...Respondent -------- WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1579 OF 2009 M/s.General Exports Enterprises..Petitioner versus Joint/Assistant Commissioner ofIncome Tax & Anr. ..Respondent --------- WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1614 OF 2009 M/s.Rainbow Silks ..Petitioner versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr...Respondent ------- WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1615 OF 2009 M/s. Shah Nareshkumar & Co.versus ..Petitioner Assistant Commissioner ofIncome Tax & Anr...Respondent -------- Mr. K.R.Choudhary with Mr. R.V.Shetty for the Petitioners. Mr. P.C.Chhotary for the Respondents. ............. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR & M.S.SANKLECHA, JJ. DATE : 29[th] October, 2012. P.C. : 1 In all these writ petitions, the constitutional validity of the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005, in respect of the retrospective insertion of clause (iiid) and (iiie) to Section 28 as well as insertion of third and fourth proviso to Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are challenged. 2This court following the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Avani Exports and Ors. v/s. Commissioner of Income Tax (Special C.A. No. 7926/06, decided on 02.07.2012) has disposed of a group of 13 similar writ petitions, the lead matter being Writ Petition No. 2446/10 (Vijay Silk House (Banglore) Ltd. v/s. Union of India. By the said decision dated 16.08.2012 this court interalia held that the impugned provisions are valid from the date of amendment and would not apply in respect of the earlier assessment years of the assessees whose export turnover is above Rs.10 crores. In other words, by the aforesaid decision this court has held that the retrospective insertion of the above provision shall not be detrimental to any of the assessee. 3Since, the dispute raised in these writ petitions are covered by the Judgment of this court in the matter of Vijay Silk House (Banglore) Ltd. (Supra), we dispose of all these writ petitions in terms of the said order. 4 Accordingly, all writ petitions are disposed of with no order as to costs. (M.S. SANKLECHA, J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)