Authority: High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Order Date: 05.09.2024
Case Overview
- Parties: Petitioner – Grospinz Fabs Limited; Respondents – Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and others.
- Nature of Proceeding: Writ petition challenging the validity of several income‑tax circulars, instructions, and notices issued by the Revenue Department.
- Background: The Court referred to earlier decisions – No.21509 of 2023 (Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India, decided 29.07.2024) and No.15745 of 2024 (Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India, decided 29.07.2024) – and a Coordinate Bench judgment dated 19.07.2024, which held that circulars or instructions cannot override statutory provisions.
- Statutory Provisions Cited: Sections 119, 120, 144B(7 & 8), and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court emphasized that these sections cannot be used to usurp legal provisions or cause hardship to assessees.
- Specific Orders Set Aside: Circulars/instructions dated 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2024, and 30.03.2023; notice dated 23.04.2024 (Section 148A(b)); notice dated 03.04.2024 (Section 148A(d)). All were found to be beyond the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer as they were issued without the faceless assessment mandated under Section 144B.
- Procedural Observations: The Court noted that the Revenue could not issue instructions that make statutory provisions otiose; such instructions are permissible only to supplement and implement the law.
Final Outcome
- All writ petitions filed by Grospinz Fabs Limited are allowed.
- The interim order previously passed by the Court is merged with the present order.
- The aforementioned circulars, notices, and consequential proceedings are set aside for want of jurisdiction.
- All pending applications in the matter are disposed of accordingly.
Topics: Tax Litigation, Income Tax Act Interpretation