2015 (7) TMI 805 - HC - Income Tax

Nature of mandamus declaring Sections 245 D (4A) and 245 HA as inserted by the Finance Act as ultra vires - proceedings before settlement commission - Whether, amendments in Chapter XIX-A of Finance Act, 2007 are ultra vires the constitution? - Held that - As decided in M/s. Jai Guru Jewelers Vs. Union of India and others 2013 (7) TMI 582 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT where following decision of Star Television News Limited Versus Union of India and others 2009 (8) TMI 86 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT to hold that by reading down the provisions of Section 245D (4A) (i) and Section 245HA (1) (iv) the constitutional validity of the amendments providing abatement of proceedings may be saved and protected from the vice of discrimination, and issue same directions to find out, if the delay is attributable to the applicants before making final order. We further direct that in carrying out the directions of this Court in the pending applications, the Settlement Commission will, in arriving at a finding on the question whether the delay in disposal is attributable to the applicants, follow the same guidelines, which have been set out in the judgment in Star Television News Ltd v. Union of India (supra) - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Relief sought for directing respondent to decide settlement application
- Relief sought to prevent abatement of application and use of disclosed materials
- Declaration of certain sections as ultra vires

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking various reliefs, including a mandamus directing the respondent to decide the settlement application before a specified date. The department informed the court that the application had already been decided on merits before the due date, rendering the first two reliefs infructuous. However, the issue of the constitutionality of Sections 245 D(4A) and 245-HA, inserted by the Finance Act 2007, was still relevant. The court referred to a previous judgment in M/s. Jai Guru Jewelers case, where it was held that by interpreting the provisions in a certain manner, the amendments providing for abatement of proceedings could be saved from discrimination. The court directed the Settlement Commission to follow specific guidelines in determining the delay attributable to applicants before making final orders.

The court concluded that since the petitioner's application had been decided timely and the legal issue regarding the constitutionality of the mentioned sections had already been addressed in a previous case, there was no need for further adjudication. Therefore, the writ petition was disposed of accordingly, with the issues raised deemed resolved based on previous judgments and the facts presented before the court.