Wpa v. Union Of India & Ors.with

17-01-2022Item No.—79-213 (p.b.) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTAConstitutional Writ JurisdictionAppellate Side WPA No.11950 of 2021Manoj Jain -vs- Union of India & Ors.With WPA Nos. 12045/2021, 12061/2021, 12153/2021, 12325/2021, 12330/2021, 12334/2021, 12335/2021, 12338/2021, 12383/2021, 12403/2021, 12407/2021, 12483/2021, 12487/2021, 12493/2021, 12504/2021, 12526/2021, 12531/2021, 12545/2021, 12583/2021, 12747/2021, 12756/2021, 12773/2021, 12776/2021, 12837/2021, 12841/2021, 12843/2021, 12949/2021, 13093/2021, 13094/2021, 13108/2021, 13109/2021, 13396/2021, 13419/2021, 13800/2021, 13803/2021, 14758/2021, 14941/2021, 14953/2021, 14956/2021, 15179/2021, 15184/2021, 15264/2021, 15265/2021, 15320/2021, 15322/2021, 15606/2021, 15619/2021, 15894/2021, 15904/2021, 16160/2021, 16161/2021, 16264/2021, 16419/2021, 16429/2021, 16436/2021, 16446/2021, 17305/2021, 17556/2021, 17643/2021, 18934/2021, 18938/2021, 19324/2021, 19436/2021, 19449/2021, 19780/2021, 19805/2021, 19809/2021, 12051/2021,12154/2021,12331/2021,12336/2021,12385/2021,12481/2021,12490/2021,12505/2021,12541/2021,12593/2021,12767/2021,12777/2021,12842/2021,13087/2021,13106/2021,13285/2021,13420/2021,13926/2021,14948/2021,15173/2021,15239/2021,15266/2021,15562/2021,15627/2021,15976/2021,16251/2021,16423/2021,16440/2021,17554/2021,18673/2021,19091/2021,19443/2021,19784/2021,19810/2021, 19825/2021, 19951/2021, 20033/2021, 20398/2021, 20496/2021, 20851/2021, 20896/2021, 20990/2021, 21488/2021, 19829/2021, 20031/2021, 20203/2021, 20406/2021, 20777/2021, 20860/2021, 20957/2021, 21023/2021, 19870/2021,20032/2021,20205/2021,20418/2021,20779/2021,20880/2021,20971/2021,21030/2021, 21031/2021, 21054/2021, 21060/2021, 21062/2021, 21065/2021, 21301/2021, Mr. Abhratosh Majumdar, Mr. Avra Mazumder,Mr. Sujay Sen,Ms. Sudeshna Mazumder,Mr. Divyanshu Agarwal,Mr. Sovendu Banerjee,Mr. Soumitra Chowdhury,Mr. Sk. Md. Bilwal Hossain,Mr. Sandeep Goel,Mr. Kapil Goel,Ms. Arati Agarwal,Mr. Pradeep Jewrajka,Ms. Pooja Jewrajka,Mr. Rahul Poddar,Mr. P. Bag,Mr. Anuj Kumar Mishra,Mr. A. K. Dey,Mr. Rajul Auddy,Mr. Ved Jain,Mr. D. B. Thakur,Mr. Himangshu Kr. Ray,Mr. Saumya Kejriwal,Mr. N. Mittal,Mr. Arujit Chakraborti,Mr. Nilotpal Chowdhury,Mr. Pramit bag,Ms. A. Kayan,Mr. Zubeen Panday,Mr. Prashant Agarwal,Mr. A. K. Upadhyay,Ms. S. Upadhyay,Mr. Ananda Sen,Mr. R. N. Dutt,Ms. Sutapa Roy Choudhury,Mr. Abhijat Das,Ms. Aratrika Roy,Mr. Anuj Kumar Mishra,Mr. Balaram Patra,Mr. Pratyush Jhunjhunwala, Mr. Samit Rudra,Mr. Piyal Gupta,Mr. Subash Agarwal,Mr. Brijesh Kumar Singh,Mr. Somak Basu, …for the petitionerMr. Y. J. Dastoor,(Ld. Additional Solicitor General)Mr. Asok Bhowmik,Mr. Manabendranath Bandyopadhyay,Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee,Mr. M. Jana,Mr. S. N. Dutta,Mr. Tilak Mitra,Mr. Debasish Choudhury,Mr. P. K. Bhoumick,Mr. S. Biswas,Mr. Arunava Ganguly,Mr. Smarajit Roy Chowdhury,Ms. Sucharita Biswas,Mr. Avirup Chatterjee,For the respondents. …….for the respondents. Heard Learned Counsels appearing for the parties. In view of involvement of common question of law andsimilarity of facts in all these Writ Petitions, with theconsent of the parties all these Writ Petitions have beenheard together and are being decided by the presentcommon judgment and order. Common facts and issues involved in all these WritPetitions as appear on perusal of relevant record and uponconsidering the submissions of the parties are that thepetitioners are aggrieved by the issuance of impugnednotices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 onthe ground that the same are barred by limitation and therespondent Income Tax Authority concerned, before issuing the impugned notices under Section 148 of the Income TaxAct, have not observed the statutory formalities underSection 148 A of the Income Tax Act as prescribed by theFinance Act, 2021 which are applicable with effect from 1[st]April, 2021 before issuance of notices under Section 148 ofthe Act on or after 1[st] April, 2021. Common facts and issues involved in all these WritPetitions as appear on perusal of relevant record and uponconsidering the submissions of the parties are that thepetitioners are aggrieved by the issuance of impugnednotices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 onthe ground that the same are barred by limitation and therespondent Income Tax Authority concerned, before issuing the impugned notices under Section 148 of the Income TaxAct, have not observed the statutory formalities underSection 148 A of the Income Tax Act as prescribed by theFinance Act, 2021 which are applicable with effect from 1[st]April, 2021 before issuance of notices under Section 148 ofthe Act on or after 1[st] April, 2021. Issues arising in all the present Writ Petitions arepurely legal and in all these Writ Petitions theassessees/petitioners have sought relief of quashing of theimpugned re-assessment notices issued post 31[st] March,2021 by the respondent Income Tax Authority concernedunder Section 148 of the Income Tax Act,assessees/petitioners have also sought relief by way of adeclaration declaring Explanations A(a)(ii)/A(b) to theNotification No. 20 [S.O. 1432 (E) dated 31[st] March, 2021and Notification No. 38 [S.O.1703 (E)] dated 27[th] April, 2021to the extent that the same extend the applicability of the“provisions of Section 148, Section 149 and Section 151 ofthe Act, as the case may be, as they stood as on the 31[st]March, 2021, before the commencement of the Finance Act,2021” to the period beyond 31[st] March, 2021 as ultra viresthe parent legislation, viz., The Taxation and Other Laws(Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act,2020 (hereinafter referred to as ‘ Relaxation Act, 2020’). At the outset, all the counsels appearing for the partiesjointly submitted that the issues involved in these Writ Petitions are covered by the decision of the Division Benchof the Allahabad High Court in the matter of ‘Ashok KumarAgarwal –vs- Union of India through its Revenue SecretaryNorth Block & Ors.’ (Writ Tax No. 524/2021) decided infavour of assessees/petitioners on 30.09.2021 by holdinginter alia in relevant paragraph nos. 63 to 80 as hereunder: “63. Having heard learned counsel for theparties and having perused the record, we findthat the thrust of the submissions advanced bylearned counsel for the petitioners, are: (i) By substituting the provisions of the Act bymeans of the Finance Act, 2021 with effect from01.04.2021, the old provisions were omittedfrom the statute book and replaced by freshprovisions with effect from 01.04.2021. Relyingon the principle – substitution omits and thusobliterates the pre-existing provision, it hasbeen further submitted, in absence of any savingclause shown to exist either under theOrdinance or the Enabling Act or the FinanceAct 2021, there exists no presumption in favourof the old provision continuing to operate forany purpose, beyond 31.03.2021. (ii) The Act is a dynamic enactment thatsustains through enactment of the Finance Actevery year. Therefore, on 1st April every year, itis the Act as amended by the Finance Act, forthat year which is applied. In the present case,it is the Act as amended by the Finance Act2021, that confronted the Enabling Act as waspre-existing. In absence of any legislative intentexpressed either under the Finance Act, 2021 orunder the Enabling Act, to preserve any part of the pre-existing Act, plainly, reference toprovisions of Sections 147 and 148 of the Actand the words ‘assessment’ and ‘reassessment’appearing in the Notifications issued under theEnabling Act may be read to be indicating onlyat proceedings already commenced prior to01.04.2021, under the Act (before amendment bythe Finance Act, 2021). The delegated actionperformed under the Enabling Act cannot, itselfcreate an overriding effect in favour of theEnabling Act. the pre-existing Act, plainly, reference toprovisions of Sections 147 and 148 of the Actand the words ‘assessment’ and ‘reassessment’appearing in the Notifications issued under theEnabling Act may be read to be indicating onlyat proceedings already commenced prior to01.04.2021, under the Act (before amendment bythe Finance Act, 2021). The delegated actionperformed under the Enabling Act cannot, itselfcreate an overriding effect in favour of theEnabling Act. iii) The Enabling Act read with itsNotifications does not validate the initiation ofany proceeding that may otherwise beincompetent under the law. That law onlyaffects the time limitation to conduct orconclude any proceeding that may have been ormay be validly instituted under the Act, whetherprior to or after its amendment by Finance Act,2021. Insofar as, Section 1(2)(a) unequivocallyenforced Sections 2 to 88 of the Finance Act,2021, w.e.f. 01.04.2021, there can be no disputeif any valid proceeding could be initiated underthe pre-existing Section 148 read with Section147, after 01.04.2021. In support thereof othersubmission also appear to exist – based uponthe enactment of Section 148A (w.e.f.01.04.2021). (iv) The delegation made could be exercisedwithin the four corners of the principallegislation and not to overreach it. Insofar asthe Enabling Act does not delegate any power tolegislate – with respect to enforceability of anyprovision of the Finance Act, 2021 and thoseprovisions (Sections 2 to 88) had come into force, on their own, on 01.04.2021, any exerciseof the delegate under the Enabling Act, to defeatthe plain enforcement of that law would bewholly unconstitutional. (v) It also appears to be the submission oflearned counsel for the petitioners that theParliament being aware of all realities, both asto the fact situation and the laws that wereexisting, it had consciously enacted theEnabling Act, to extend certain time limitationsand to enforce only a partial change to thereassessment procedure, by enacting section151-A to the Act. It then enacted the FinanceAct, 2021 to change the substantive andprocedural law governing the reassessmentproceedings. That having been done, togetherwith introduction of section 148-A to the Act,legislative field stood occupied, leaving thedelegate with no room to manipulate the lawexcept as to the time lines with respect toproceedings that may have been initiated underthe Act (both prior to and after enforcement ofthe Finance Act, 2021). To bolster theirsubmission, learned counsel for the petitionersalso rely on the principle – the delegatedlegislation can never defeat the principallegislation. (vi) Last, it has also been asserted, the non-obstante clause created under section 3(1) of theEnabling Act must be read in the context and forthe purpose or intent for which it is created. Itcannot be given a wider meaning or applicationas may defeat the other laws. 64. As to the first line of reasoning applied by the learned counsel for the petitioner, as noted above, there can be no exception to theprinciple – an Act of legislative substitution is acomposite act. Thereby, the legislature choosesto put in place another or, replace an existingprovision of law. It involves simultaneousomission and re-enactment. By its very nature,once a new provision has been put in place of apre-existing provision, the earlier provisioncannot survive, except for things done oralready undertaken to be done or thingsexpressly saved to be done. In absence of anyexpress saving clause and, since noreassessment proceeding had been initiatedprior to the Act of legislative substitution, thesecond aspect of the matter does not require anyfurther examination. 64. As to the first line of reasoning applied by the learned counsel for the petitioner, as noted above, there can be no exception to theprinciple – an Act of legislative substitution is acomposite act. Thereby, the legislature choosesto put in place another or, replace an existingprovision of law. It involves simultaneousomission and re-enactment. By its very nature,once a new provision has been put in place of apre-existing provision, the earlier provisioncannot survive, except for things done oralready undertaken to be done or thingsexpressly saved to be done. In absence of anyexpress saving clause and, since noreassessment proceeding had been initiatedprior to the Act of legislative substitution, thesecond aspect of the matter does not require anyfurther examination. 65. Therefore, other things apart,undeniably, on 01.04.2021, by virtue ofplain/unexpected effect of Section 1(2)(a) of theFinance Act, 2021, the provisions of Sections147, 148, 149, 151 (as those provisions existedup to 31.03.2021), stood substituted, along witha new provision enacted by way of Section 148Aof that Act. In absence of any saving clause, tosave the pre-existing (and now substituted)provisions, the revenue authorities could onlyinitiate reassessment proceeding on or after01.04.2021, in accordance with the substitutedlaw and not the pre-existing laws. 66. It is equally true that the Enabling Actthat was pre-existing, had been enforced prior toenforcement of the Finance Act, 2021. Itconfronted the Act as amended by Finance Act,2021, as it came into existence on 01.04.2021.In the Enabling Act and the Finance Act, 2021, there is absence, both of any express provisionin itself or to delegate the function – to saveapplicability of the provisions of sections 147,148, 149 or 151 of the Act, as they existed up to31.03.2021. Plainly, the Enabling Act is anenactment to extend timelines only.Consequently, it flows from the above –01.04.2021 onwards, all references to issuanceof notice contained in the Enabling Act must beread as reference to the substituted provisionsonly. Equally there is no difficulty in applyingthe pre-existing provisions to pendingproceedings. Looked in that manner, the lawsare harmonized. 67. It may also be not forgotten, areassessment proceeding is not just anotherproceeding emanating from a simple show causenotice. Both, under the pre-existing law as alsounder the law enforced from 01.04.2021, thatproceeding must arise only upon jurisdictionbeing validly assumed by the assessingauthority. Till such time jurisdiction is validlyassumed by assessing authority – evidenced byissuance of the jurisdictional notice underSection 148, no reassessment proceeding mayever be said to be pending before the assessingauthority. The admission of the revenueauthorities that all re-assessment noticesinvolved in this batch of writ petitions had beenissued after the enforcement date 01.04.2021, istell-tale and critical. As a fact, no jurisdictionhad been assumed by the assessing authorityagainst any of the petitioners, under theunamended law. Hence, no time extension couldever be made under section 3(1) of the Enabling Act, read with the Notifications issuedthereunder. Act, read with the Notifications issuedthereunder. 68. The submission of the learned AdditionalSolicitor General of India that the provision ofSection 3(1) of the Enabling Act gave anoverriding effect to that Act and therefore savedthe provisions as existed under the unamendedlaw, also cannot be accepted. That saving couldarise only if jurisdiction had been validlyassumed before the date 01.04.2021. In the firstplace Section 3(1) of the Enabling Act does notspeak of saving any provision of law. It onlyspeaks of saving or protecting certainproceedings from being hit by the rule oflimitation. That provision also does not speak ofsaving any proceeding from any law that may beenacted by the Parliament, in future. For bothreasons, the submission advanced by learnedAdditional Solicitor General of India isunacceptable.69. Even otherwise the word‘notwithstanding’ creating the non obstanteclause, does not govern the entire scope ofSection 3(1) of the Enabling Act. It is confined toand may be employed only with reference to thesecond part of Section 3(1) of the Enabling Acti.e. to protect proceedings already under way.There is nothing in the language of thatprovision to admit a wider or sweepingapplication to be given to that clause – to servea purpose not contemplated under thatprovision and the enactment, wherein itappears. 70. The upshot of the above reasoning is, theEnabling Act only protected certain proceedings that may have become time barred on20.03.2020, up to the date 30.06.2021.Correspondingly, by delegated legislationincorporated by the Central Government, it mayextend that time limit. That time limit alonestood extended up to 30 June, 2021. We alsonote, the learned Additional Solicitor General ofIndia may not be entirely correct in stating thatno extension of time was granted beyond30.06.2021. Vide Notification No. 3814 dated17.09.2021, issued under section 3(1) of theEnabling Act, further extension of time has beengranted till 31.03.2022. In absence of anyspecific delegation made, to allow the delegateof the Parliament, to indefinitely extend suchlimitation, would be to allow the validity of anenacted law i.e. the Finance Act, 2021 to bedefeated by a purely colourable exercise ofpower, by the delegate of the Parliament. 71. Here, it may also be clarified, Section3(1) of the Enabling Act does not itself speak ofreassessment proceeding or of Section 147 orSection 148 of the Act as it existed prior to01.04.2021. It only provides a generalrelaxation of limitation granted on account ofgeneral hardship existing upon the spread ofpandemic COVID -19. After enforcement of theFinance Act, 2021, it applies to the substitutedprovisions and not the pre-existing provisions. 72. Reference to reassessment proceedingswith respect to pre-existing and now substitutedprovisions of Sections 147 and 148 of the Acthas been introduced only by the laterNotifications issued under the Act. Therefore,the validity of those provisions is also required to be examined. We have concluded as above,that the provisions of Sections 147, 148, 148A,149, 150 and 151 substituted the old/pre-existing provisions of the Act w.e.f. 01.04.2021.We have further concluded, in absence of anyproceeding of reassessment having beeninitiated prior to the date 01.04.2021, it is theamended law alone that would apply. We do notsee how the delegate i.e. Central Government orthe CBDT could have issued the Notifications,plainly to over reach the principal legislation.Unless harmonized as above, those Notificationswould remain invalid. to be examined. We have concluded as above,that the provisions of Sections 147, 148, 148A,149, 150 and 151 substituted the old/pre-existing provisions of the Act w.e.f. 01.04.2021.We have further concluded, in absence of anyproceeding of reassessment having beeninitiated prior to the date 01.04.2021, it is theamended law alone that would apply. We do notsee how the delegate i.e. Central Government orthe CBDT could have issued the Notifications,plainly to over reach the principal legislation.Unless harmonized as above, those Notificationswould remain invalid. 73. Unless specifically enabled under anylaw and unless that burden had beendischarged by the respondents, we are unable toaccept the further submission advanced by thelearned Additional Solicitor General of Indiathat practicality dictates that the reassessmentproceedings be protected. Practicality, if any,may lead to legislation. Once the matter reachesCourt, it is the legislation and its language, andthe interpretation offered to that language asmay primarily be decisive to govern the outcomeof the proceeding. To read practicality intoenacted law is dangerous. Also, it would involvelegislation by the Court, an idea and exercise wecarefully tread away from. 74. Similarly, the mischief rule has limitedapplication in the present case. Only in case ofany doubt existing as to which of the twointerpretations may apply or to clear a doubt asto the true interpretation of a provision, theCourt may look at the mischief rule to find thecorrect law. However, where plain legislative action exists, as in the present case (whereunderthe Parliament has substituted the oldprovisions regarding reassessment with newprovisions w.e.f. 01.04.2021), the mischief rulehas no application.75. As we see there is no conflict in theapplication and enforcement of the Enabling Actand the Finance Act, 2021. Juxtaposed, if theFinance Act, 2021 had not made thesubstitution to the reassessment procedure, therevenue authorities would have been withintheir rights to claim extension of time, underthe Enabling Act. However, upon that sweepingamendment made the Parliament, by necessaryimplication or implied force, it limited theapplicability of the Enabling Act and the powerto grant time extensions thereunder, to onlysuch reassessment proceedings as had beeninitiated till 31.03.2021. Consequently, theimpugned Notifications have no applicability tothe reassessment proceedings initiated from01.04.2021 onwards. 76. Upon the Finance Act 2021 enforcedw.e.f. 1.4.2021 without any saving of theprovisions substituted, there is no room to reacha conclusion as to conflict of laws. It was for theassessing authority to act according to the lawas existed on and after 1.4.2021. If the rule oflimitation permitted, it could initiate,reassessment proceedings in accordance withthe new law, after making adequate complianceof the same. That not done, the reassessmentproceedings initiated against the petitioners arewithout jurisdiction. 77. Insofar as the decision of the Supreme 76. Upon the Finance Act 2021 enforcedw.e.f. 1.4.2021 without any saving of theprovisions substituted, there is no room to reacha conclusion as to conflict of laws. It was for theassessing authority to act according to the lawas existed on and after 1.4.2021. If the rule oflimitation permitted, it could initiate,reassessment proceedings in accordance withthe new law, after making adequate complianceof the same. That not done, the reassessmentproceedings initiated against the petitioners arewithout jurisdiction. 77. Insofar as the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Kymal Vs. SiemensGamesa Renewable Power Private Limited(supra)is concerned, we opine, the same iswholly distinguishable. Therein The Insolvencyand Bankruptcy Code 2016 was amended by theParliament and a new Section 10A, wasintroduced, apparently again on account of thedifficulties arising from the spread of pandemicCOVID-19. That Section reads as under: “10A.Notwithstanding anything contained in sections7, 9 and 10, no application for initiation ofcorporate insolvency resolution process of acorporate debtor shall be filed, for any defaultarising on or after 25th March, 2020 for aperiod of six months or such further period, notexceeding one year from such date, as may benotified 2 in this behalf: Provided that noapplication shall ever be filed for initiation ofcorporate insolvency resolution process of acorporate debtor for the said default occurringduring the said period. Explanation. – For theremoval of doubts, it is hereby clarified that theprovisions of this section shall not apply to anydefault committed under the said sectionsbefore 25th March, 2020.]” 78. Plainly, in that case, the earlierprovisions were not substituted rather theycontinued to exist. The parliamentaryintervention by introducing Section 10A of thatAct only provided – no proceeding be institutedfor any default arising after 21.3.2020, for aperiod of six months or such period notexceeding one year, as may be notified. Thus, inthat case, by virtue of amendment made,delegated power created, could be exercised to relax the otherwise stringent provisions of theAct, in cases, wherein difficulties arose from thespread of the pandemic COVID-19. Thus, thatratio is plainly distinguishable. 79. As to the decision of the ChhattisgarhHigh Court, with all respect, we are unable topersuade ourselves to that view. According tous, it would be incorrect to look at thedelegation legislation i.e. Notification dated31.03.2021 issued under the Enabling Act, tointerpret the principal legislation made byParliament, being the Finance Act, 2021. Adelegated legislation can never overreach anyAct of the principal legislature. Second, it wouldbe over simplistic to ignore the provisions of,either the Enabling Act or the Finance Act, 2021and to read and interpret the provisions ofFinance Act, 2021 as inoperative in view of thefact circumstances arising from the spread ofthe pandemic COVID-19. Practicality of life dehors statutory provisions, may never be a goodguiding principle to interpret any taxation law.In absence of any specific clause in Finance Act,2021, either to save the provisions of theEnabling Act or the Notifications issuedthereunder, by no interpretative process canthose Notifications be given an extended run oflife, beyond 31 March 2020. They may also notinfuse any life into a provision that stoodobliterated from the statute with effect from31.03.2021. Inasmuch as the Finance Act, 2021does not enable the Central Government to issueany notification to reactivate the pre-existinglaw (which that principal legislature hadsubstituted), the exercise made by the delegate/Central Government would be de horsany statutory basis. In absence of any expresssaving of the pre-existing laws, the presumptiondrawn in favour of that saving, is plainlyimpermissible. Also, no presumption exists thatby Notification issued under the Enabling Act,the operation of the pre-existing provision of theAct had been extended and thereby provisions ofSection 148A of the Act (introduced by FinanceAct 2021) and other provisions had beendeferred. Such Notifications did not insulate orsave, the pre-existing provisions pertaining toreassessment under the Act. 80. In view of the above, all the writ petitionsmust succeed and are allowed. It is declaredthat the Ordinance, the Enabling Act andSections 2 to 88 of the Finance Act 2021, asenforced w.e.f. 01.04.2021, are not conflicted.Insofar as the Explanation appended to ClauseA(a), A(b), and the impugned Notifications dated31.03.2021 and 27.04.2021 (respectively) areconcerned, we declare that the saidExplanations must be read, as applicable toreassessment proceedings as may have been inexistence on 31.03.2021 i.e. before thesubstitution of Sections 147, 148, 148A, 149,151 & 151A of the Act. Consequently, thereassessment notices in all the writ petitionsare quashed. It is left open to the respectiveassessing authorities to initiate reassessmentproceedings in accordance with the provisionsof the Act as amended by Finance Act, 2021,after making all compliances, as required bylaw.” Following the aforesaid decision of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, the Rajasthan High Courttaking the similar view have allowed the Writ Petitions byquashing the impugned assessment notices under Section148 of the Act by the order dated 25[th] November, 2021 inthe case of Bpip Infra Private Limited –vs- Income TaxOfficer, Ward 4 (1), Jaipur (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13297/2021). Taking a similar view the Delhi High Court by itsjudgment and order dated 15[th] December, 2021 in the caseof Man Mohan Kohli –vs- Assistant Commissioner of IncomeTax & Anr. (W.P. (C) 6176 of 2021) have allowed the WritPetitions by quashing the impugned notices under Section148 of the Income Tax Act. Paragraph Nos. 97 - 105 of thesaid judgment of Delhi High Court which are relevant arequoted hereinbelow: “97. This Court is of the view that as theLegislature has introduced the newprovisions, Sections 147 to 151 of the Income TaxAct, 1961 by way of the Finance Act, 2021 with effectfrom 1st April, 2021 and as the said Section 147 isnot even mentioned in the impugned Explanations,the reassessment notices relating to any AssessmentYear issued under Section 148 after 31st March, 2021had to comply with the substituted Sections. 98. It is clarified that the power of reassessmentthat existed prior to 31st March, 2021 continued toexist till the extended period i.e. till 30th June, 2021;however, the Finance Act, 2021 has merely changedthe procedure to be followed prior to issuance ofnotice with effect from 1st April, 2021. 99. This Court is of the opinion that Section 3(1) of Relaxation Act empowers theGovernment/Executive to extend only the time limitsand it does not delegate the power to legislate onprovisions to be followed for initiation ofreassessment proceedings. In fact, the Relaxation Actdoes not give power to Government to extend theerstwhile Sections 147 to 151 beyond 31st March,2021 and/or defer the operation of substitutedprovisions enacted by the Finance Act, 2021.Consequently, the impugned Explanations in theNotifications dated 31st March, 2021 and 27th April,2021 are not conditional legislation and are beyondthe power delegated to the Government as well asultra vires the parent statute i.e. the Relaxation Act.Accordingly, this Court is respectfully not inagreement with the view of the Chhattisgarh HighCourt in Palak Khatuja (supra), but with theviews Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWATSigning Date:15.12.2021 14:05:36 of the AllahabadHigh Court and Rajasthan High Court in Ashok KumarAgarwal (supra) and Bpip Infra Private Limited (supra)respectively. 100. The submission of the Revenue that Section6 of the General Clauses Act saves notices issuedunder Section 148 post 31st March, 2021 isuntenable in law, as in the present case, the repeal isfollowed by a fresh legislation on the same subjectand the new Act manifests an intention to destroythe old procedure. Consequently, if the Legislaturehas permitted reassessment to be made in aparticular manner, it can only be in this manner, ornot at all. 101. The argument of the respondents that thesubstitution made by the Finance Act, 2021 is notapplicable to past Assessment Years, as it issubstantial in nature is contradicted by Respondents'own Circular 549 of 1989 and its own submission thatfrom 1st July, 2021, the substitution made by the Finance Act, 2021 will be applicable. 102. Revenue cannot rely on Covid-19 forcontending that the new provisions Sections147 to 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 should notoperate during the period 1st April, 2021 to 30thJune, 2021 as Parliament was fully aware of Covid-19Pandemic when it passed the Finance Act, 2021. Also,the arguments of the respondents qua non-obstanteclause in Section 3(1) of the Relaxation Act, 'legalfiction' and 'stop the clock provision' are contrary tofacts and untenable in law.103. Consequently, this Court is of the view thatthe Executive/Respondents/Revenue cannot use theadministrative power to issue Notifications underSection 3(1) of the Relaxation Act, 2020 toundermine the expression of Parliamentarysupremacy in the form of an Act of Parliament,namely, the Finance Act, 2021. This Court is also ofthe opinion that theExecutive/Respondents/Revenue cannot frustratethe purpose of substituted statutory provisions,like Sections 147 to 151 of Income Tax Act, 1961 inthe present instance, by emptying it of content orimpeding or postponing their effectual operation. 104. Keeping in view the aforesaid conclusions,Explanations A(a)(ii)/A(b) to the Notifications dated31st March, 2021 and 27th April, 2021 are declaredto be ultra vires the Relaxation Act, 2020 and aretherefore bad in law and null and void. 105. Consequently, the impugned reassessmentnotices issued under Section 148 of the Income TaxAct, 1961 are quashed and the present writ petitionsare allowed. If the law permits therespondents/revenue to take further steps in thematter, they shall be at liberty to do so. Needless tostate that if and when such steps are taken and if thepetitioners have a grievance, they shall be at libertyto take their remedies in accordance with law.” Respectfully agreeing with the reasonings and viewstaken by the Allahabad High Court, the Rajasthan HighCourt and Delhi High Court in the cases referredhereinabove, all these Writ Petitions herein are disposedof by allowing the same. Keeping in view the aforesaidconclusions, Explanations A(a)(ii)/A(b) to theNotifications dated 31st March, 2021 and 27th April,2021 are declared to be ultra vires the Relaxation Act,2020 and are therefore bad in law and null and void. Allthe impugned notices under Section 148 of the IncomeTax Act are quashed with liberty to the Assessing Officersconcerned to initiate fresh re-assessment proceedings inaccordance with the relevant provisions of the Act asamended by Finance Act, 2021 and after makingcompliance of the formalities as required by the law. Urgent certified photo copy of this judgment, if appliedfor, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with allrequisite formalities. [Md. Nizamuddin, J]