9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (4) TMI 321 - HC - Income TaxBar on Jurisdiction of the HC u/s 269UN OR u/s 293 of the Act - Whether the present suit is either expressly or impliedly barred under any provisions of law and more particularly under the provisions of Section 269 UN and/or 293 of the Act - Held that - The cause of action is a bundle of facts which is taken with the law applicable to them gives the plaintiff the right to relief against the defendant - every fact which is necessary for the plaintiff to prove to enable him to get a decree should be set out in clear terms - if clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action it should be nipped in the bud at the first hearing by examining the parties under Order 10 of the CPC - in Rangamall and others Versus Union of India 1962 (7) TMI 36 - MADRAS HIGH COURT it has been held that merely by casting the prayer in the form of a declaration the substance of the prayer could not be hidden. The decision in Commissioner of Income-Tax And Another Versus Parmeshwari Devi Sultania And Others 1998 (3) TMI 3 - SUPREME Court followed - the amendment made to the section is more comprehensive in nature - the scope of Section 293 of the Act has been widened and improved and it is not merely confined to set aside or modify the order - the form of suit is not relevant - It is the substance which has to be seen - when the statute prescribed certain proceedings thereunder are held and order passed, it is difficult to accept a contention that the proceeding and/or order can be modified or set aside in a civil suit filed by a third party - Section 293 is specific and does not admit filing of a suit which has the effect of even indirectly setting aside or modifying any proceeding taken under the Act - what relief cannot be claimed directly, cannot be claimed indirectly - If the relief of declaration as sought by the plaintiff is granted, it would amount to permitting the plaintiff to question the proceedings initiated by the appropriate authority, which is clearly barred under Section 293 of the Act. The 'Notes of Clauses' to the finance Act, 1986 provided that any order made by the appropriate authority u/s 269UD or any order made by the appropriate authority u/s 269UF shall be final and conclusive and shall not be called into question in any proceeding under the Income Tax Act or any other law for the time being in force, it clearly indicates the intention of legislature that such orders are final and cannot be called into question in any proceedings under Income Tax Act or any other law for the time in force - civil suit is clearly barred for claiming such declaration - seeking a declaration in the present case is a direct attempt or in any view of the matter an indirect attempt of the plaintiff to set aside the order dated 12th September 2002 which is clearly barred. It is clear that the plaintiff is challenging the proceedings initiated by the appropriate authority under Chapter XXC and also makes an attempt to challenge the order passed by appropriate authority u/s 269UD(i) which is clearly barred u/s 269UN and 293 of Income Tax Act 1961 - in view of Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 the Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit in view of such suit being barred u/s 269UN and 293 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 Decided against Assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Court to try, entertain, and dispose of the present suit is barred under Section 269UN of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and/or Section 293 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 2. Whether the law of limitation bars the present suit? 3. Whether the plaintiff has the locus standi to maintain the present suit and/or is estopped from instituting the present suit? Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction Bar under Section 269UN and Section 293 of the Income Tax Act, 1961: The primary issue addressed was whether the jurisdiction of the court is barred under Section 269UN and Section 293 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court examined the relevant statutory provisions and judicial precedents to determine the scope and applicability of these sections. Section 269UN states that any order made under subsection (1) of Section 269UD or subsection (2) of Section 269UF shall be final and conclusive and shall not be called into question in any proceeding under the Income Tax Act or any other law for the time being in force. Section 293 bars any suit in a civil court to set aside or modify any proceeding taken or order made under the Income Tax Act. The court noted that the plaintiff sought a declaration that the order dated 12th September 2002 of compulsory purchase of the suit property stood abrogated and that the property revested in the original owners. The plaintiff also sought possession of the property and other consequential reliefs. The court observed that granting such reliefs would involve questioning the validity of the order passed under Section 269UD(1), which is explicitly barred by Section 269UN and Section 293. The court relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in *Commissioner of Income Tax Bhubaneswar vs. Parmeshwaridevi Sultania* (1998) 3 SCC 481, which held that Section 293 is specific and bars filing a suit that indirectly sets aside or modifies any proceeding taken under the Income Tax Act. The court also referred to the Madras High Court's judgment in *Government of India vs. Maxim Lobo* (1991) 2 Law Weekly Report 1, which stated that an order under Section 269UD(1) is not appealable or revisable and its validity can only be tested under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and by the Supreme Court under Article 136. The court concluded that the suit was barred under Section 269UN and Section 293 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as it indirectly sought to set aside the order passed under Section 269UD(1). The court held that the jurisdiction of the civil court was expressly barred, and the suit was not maintainable. 2. Law of Limitation: The court did not find it necessary to answer this issue, as the primary issue of jurisdiction was dispositive of the case. Since the suit was barred under Section 269UN and Section 293 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the question of limitation did not arise. 3. Locus Standi and Estoppel: Similarly, the court did not address this issue, as the determination that the suit was barred under Section 269UN and Section 293 rendered this issue moot. The court focused on the jurisdictional bar and found that the suit could not be entertained, making it unnecessary to consider the plaintiff's locus standi or any potential estoppel. Conclusion: The court concluded that the suit was barred under Section 269UN and Section 293 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court held that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, as it indirectly sought to set aside the order passed under Section 269UD(1). Consequently, the suit was dismissed, and all interlocutory proceedings were also dismissed. The court granted a continuation of the status quo order for four weeks to allow the plaintiff to seek appropriate relief.
|
