9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to assessment orders for liability of interest under proviso to s. 139(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 based on discrimination and violation of art. 14 of the Constitution. Analysis: The petitioner, a registered partnership firm, challenged assessment orders for assessment years 1968-69 to 1971-72, contesting the liability for interest under cl. (iii)(a) of the proviso to s. 139(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The main contention was that the provision discriminated against registered firms, violating art. 14 of the Constitution. The argument relied on a case supporting this view but was rejected by the court. The section in question, s. 139, sets out the time for filing returns, with provisions for extension by the ITO without interest liability under specific conditions. The impugned provision, sub-cl. (a) of cl. (iii), mandates interest payment by registered firms on the tax amount if assessed as unregistered firms, while others pay interest on their total income tax. The petitioner argued that registered firms should not be treated differently and questioned the justification for this distinction. The court explained that registered firms are assessed differently from unregistered firms under the Act, with partners individually taxed on their share of income. The Act grants privileges to registered firms, such as tax payment at a reduced rate. The court held that the Legislature can choose to grant privileges selectively, as seen in the provision in question. Referring to a Supreme Court judgment on a similar penalty provision, the court found no discrimination in requiring registered firms to pay interest as if unregistered in certain cases. The court rejected the argument that the interest was compensatory, not penal, as irrelevant to the discrimination issue. Previous judgments from various High Courts were cited, with some distinguishing the interest as quasi-penal. However, the court aligned with the Gujarat High Court's view that the provision merely withheld a privilege from registered firms, finding it valid and non-discriminatory. Ultimately, the court dismissed the petition, upholding the validity of the impugned provision. No costs were awarded, and the security amount was ordered to be refunded to the petitioner.
|
