9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act - Whether the time limit for making a reference to the High Court is mandatory or directory. Analysis: The judgment involves the interpretation of section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act regarding the time limit for making a reference to the High Court. The primary issue raised by the Assessee's counsel was whether the Tribunal's failure to refer the case within the stipulated ninety days rendered the reference time-barred and not entertainable. The counsel argued that strict compliance with the time limit under section 66(1) is mandatory, emphasizing that the party's rights under the Tribunal's decision should not be jeopardized without adhering to the statutory provisions. In addressing the argument, the Court referred to a previous case where it was held that the time limit for making a reference was directory rather than mandatory. The Court reiterated that the distinction between a mandatory and directory provision lies in the consequences of non-compliance. While non-compliance with a mandatory provision invalidates the act, failure to adhere to a directory provision does not. The Court emphasized that the provision should be construed as directory to prevent undue prejudice to parties and avoid chaos in income-tax affairs. Furthermore, the Court rejected the argument that parties could seek relief through a writ of mandamus if the Tribunal failed to make a reference within the prescribed time. The Court maintained that the question of limitation is between the parties and not between the parties and the Court. It clarified that the observance of the time limit for making a reference should not be construed as mandatory, as it could lead to one party suffering due to the Tribunal's default. Ultimately, the Court upheld its previous decision and concluded that the time limit under section 66(1) is directory, not mandatory. The judgment emphasized the importance of balancing the interests of the parties while interpreting statutory provisions. The Court also affirmed that the question referred in the case was conclusively answered by a Supreme Court decision, leading to the answer being in the negative. In conclusion, the judgment provides a detailed analysis of the interpretation of statutory provisions, emphasizing the distinction between mandatory and directory requirements. It underscores the need to prevent undue prejudice to parties while ensuring the efficient functioning of the legal process. The Court's decision reaffirms the previous stance on the issue and resolves the specific question referred in the case.
|
