9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to communication regarding VDIS scheme and certificate issuance under Finance Act, 1997; Jurisdictional competence of Delhi High Court to entertain the petition; Binding effect of CBDT communication on subordinate authorities. Analysis: The petitioners, assessable under the Income-tax Act, challenged a communication related to the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, seeking a mandamus for certificate issuance under the Finance Act, 1997. The bank sought extension of prohibitory orders on deposits until December 31, 1997, aligning with the VDIS scheme. The VDIS, enacted by the Finance Act, 1997, allows tax evaders to disclose income, pay tax at 30%, and gain immunity from further investigation. The petitioners, yet to declare or pay tax, feared denial of VDIS benefits due to a CBDT communication. The High Court dismissed the petition, noting the petitioners' Mumbai assessment jurisdiction and premature invocation of Delhi High Court's writ jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that the petitioners' VDIS declaration would occur in Mumbai before the Commissioner of Income-tax, who would issue the certificate. The Court rejected premature adjudication, stating the petitioners decide to declare under VDIS voluntarily. The CBDT communication did not bind income-tax authorities or the petitioners regarding VDIS benefits. The communication lacked the character of an order under section 119 of the Income-tax Act, allowing petitioners to seek relief from the appropriate forum if the certificate is unreasonably withheld by the Mumbai authority. The Court held the petition premature and beyond Delhi High Court's territorial jurisdiction. It advised the petitioners to proceed with VDIS declaration in Mumbai and seek redressal locally if needed. The dismissal of the petition was based on the lack of cause of action within Delhi's jurisdiction and the premature nature of the petition.
|
