High Court of Delhi dismissed petitions challenging CBDT circular on PAN-Aadhaar linkage, upholding interim order in light of Binoy Viswam judgement.
No new relief granted; interim order varied to extend PAN linking deadline to June 2018 as per CBDT circular.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~19 & 20
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
VRINDA GROVER ..... Petitioner
versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents Present : Mr.Kirti Uppal, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Prasanna, S. and Mr.Soutik Banerjee, Advocates for petitioner in Item No.19.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Ms.Rebecca John, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Prasanna, S. and Mr.Soutik Banerjee, Advocates for petitioner in Item No.20.
Mr.Ravi Prakash, CGSC with Mr.Farman Ali, Mr.Nitish Gupta and Ms.Anshula Lariya, Advocates in Item No.19.
Mr.Zoheb Hossain, Sr. Standing Counsel for Revenue with Mr. Deepak Anand, Jr. Standing Counsel for Revenue/R-2 to R-6 in Item Nos.19 and 20.
Mr.Gaurang Kanth, CGSC for UOI in Item No.20.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA
W.P.(C) 3212/2018 & WP(C) 3226/2018
Page 1 of 3
O R D E R
% 14.05.2018
Counsel appearing for the Revenue urges that the interim order made by this Court has to be seen in the context of the directions of the Supreme Court in Binoy Viswam Vs. Union of India , (2017) 7 SCC 59; especially in para 133, which by and large, upheld the validity of Section 139AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”). The para under consideration is granting limited relief as has been given by the larger Bench judgment delivered by Nine Judges. Attention of the Court is also invited to the order of Five Judges, who were parties to the Nine Judges’ Bench decision in the case of Justice K.S.Puttaswamy (Retd) vs. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1. It is therefore urged that the CBDT’s circular relied upon by the petitioner is contextual and compliant of Section 139 AA of the Act is the norm.
This Court has considered the submissions.
When Binoy Viswam (supra) was decided, the Court was conscious of the issue as to whether the fundamental right to privacy existed or otherwise was moot; the Larger Bench of the Judges is seized of the reference. Consciously, therefore, Binoy Viswam (supra) had not only upheld the validity of Section 139 AA of the Act but also added a note of caution that the consequences spelt out under Section 139AA(2) of the Act would not be presently visited with respect to those assesses who are not Aadhaar Card holders and do not comply with the mandate. The Five Judges (who were part of the W.P.(C) 3212/2018 & WP(C) 3226/2018 Page 2 of 3
Bench) merely reiterated those observations when the judgment was pronounced by the nine Judges. If the CBDT’s circular dated 27.03.2018 is noticed in the background of these circumstances, there is no room for doubt that the time for linking PAN with Aadhaar has been extended to June 2018 in its expressed term. The Court, therefore, sees no reason to vary its previous order. The returns filed by the petitioner shall be expedited and processed in accordance with law subject to the outcome of the decision in WP(C) 494/2012 and connected matters.
Writ petitions are disposed of in the above terms. Pending applications too are disposed of.
Order dasti to the parties.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J
A. K. CHAWLA, J
MAY 14, 2018 ndn
W.P.(C) 3212/2018 & WP(C) 3226/2018
Page 3 of 3
1 issue framed by the court
Whether theCBDT's circular regarding the linkagf of PAN with Aadhaar is compliant with Section 139AA of the Act
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Binoy Vs. Union of IndiaReferred¶19
Binoy Vs. Union of India, (2017) 7 SCC 59 · Who else cites this
Justice K.S.Puttaswamy (Retd) vs. Union of IndiaReferred¶19
Justice K.S.Puttaswamy (Retd) vs. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Mukul Talwar
Vrinda Grover
Union of India
S. Ravindra Bhat
A. K. Chawla
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
S. Ravindra Bhat and A. K. Chawla
Parties & counsel
