The High Court of Himachal Pradesh disposed of two common writ petitions challenging the empowerment of Deputy/Assistant Commissioners to Income Tax (Exemptions) in Chandigarh to handle exemption cases of the H.P. Pollution Control Board. The court held that the policy was not illegal or arbitrary and dismissed the writs.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 1885 of 2016 a/w CWP No. 3929 of 2015 Date of decision: 09.10.2017.
CWP No. 1885/2016. H.P. Pollution Control Board
…..Petitioner
Versus Union of India and others
……. Respondents
CWP No. 3929/2015. H.P. Pollution Control Board
…..Petitioner Versus Union of India and others
……. Respondents
Coram:
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Acting Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge
Whether approved for reporting?
For the petitioner(s): Mr. Ajay Vaidya, Advocate. For the respondent(s): Mr. Ashok Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General of India with Ms. Sukarma, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. Mr. Vinay Kuthiala, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Vandana Kuthiala, Advocate, for respondents No. 2 to 6.
Sanjay Karol, Acting Chief Justice (oral)
Petitioner by means of CWP No. 1885 of 2016, lays challenge to order dated 15.11.2014 (AnnexureP7) whereby Deputy/Assistant Commissioner to Income Tax (Exemptions) Range-2 has been empowered to deal with the matters, seeking exemption under various statutory
2
provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”, for short) pertaining to cases where gross receipt exceeds `5 crores, falling within the Revenue Districts of State of Haryana and Himachal Pradesh. Resultant challenge is laid to Annexure P5 dated 22.1.2016, assessment proceedings for the year 2013-2014 and Annexure P9 for the assessment year 2014-2015, issued under Section 142 of the Act.
3
are of the considered view that there is neither any illegality nor any irrationality/arbitrariness with the same. Also none can be pointed out, save and except that it is extremely difficult for poor litigants of the State to approach the Authority at Chandigarh. We are not inclined to accept this as a ground for holding the policy decision to be irrational/arbitrary/illegal and this we say so for the following reasons:
4
Pollution Control Board versus Union of India and others, similar notice under Section 142 of the Act in relation to assessment proceedings for assessment year 2014-2015 was issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Shimla Circle. We find this action to have been explained by the respondents in para 3 of their affidavit, highlighting that such notice came to be issued only to avoid the assessment proceedings being barred by limitation and more so, in view of interim order passed in the earlier proceedings initiated by them.
(Sanjay Karol) Acting Chief Justice
October 09, 2017. (Sandeep Sharma)
(cm Thakur)
Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the policy decision to empower Central Tax Authorities to deal with exemption cases of State-owned entities is illegal, arbitrary, or irrational.
Whether the difficulty faced by the petitioners in approaching the Central Authority in Chandigarh constitutes an arbitrary ground to invalidate the policy.
H.P. Pollution Control Board
Union of India
Sanjay Karol
Sandeep Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
