Disposed¶25

M/s. A.P. Met Engineering Ltd., 607, v. The Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary

Telangana HC8 Jul 2025WP/6901/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Infructuous disposal of a 2009 Telangana High Court writ petition (WP.No.6901 of 2009) by A.P. Met Engineering Ltd. challenging the constitutional validity of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (alleged violation of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g)) and seeking quashing of the ITNS 65 order dated 22-12-2008 and the appellate order dated 26-2-2009 in ITA No. 02211CI(A)-III/08-09; liberty reserved to revive or file afresh; no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions closed; bench: P. Sam Koshy and Narsing Rao Nandikonda, JJ.; decided 08-07-2025.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to the parties to revive the writ petition or file a fresh petition in the event any grievance or subsequent cause of action arises; no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous petitions closed. ¶25

M/s. A.P. Met Engineering Ltd., 607, Vs The Union of India… — Income Tax | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is ultra vires of the Constitution of India and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g), and whether the order dated 22-12-2008 in ITNS 65 and the appellate order dated 26-2-2009 in ITA No. 02211CI(A)-III/08-09 should be set aside (issue as raised in the petition; not adjudicated, as the petition was disposed of as infructuous).

¶13

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition stands disposed of as infructuous, granting liberty to the parties to revive the petition or file a fresh petition in the event any grievance or subsequent cause of action arises.

¶25

Key takeaways

There shall be no order as to costs.ratio¶25
Pending miscellaneous petitions shall stand closed.ratio¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition No. 6901 of 2009 - A.P. Met Engineering Ltd. v. Union of India and others (High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad, Special Original Jurisdiction; P. Sam Koshy and Narsing Rao Nandikonda, JJ.; decided 08-07-2025). The petitioner had approached the Court under Article 226 seeking (i) a declaration that Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is ultra vires the Constitution and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g), and (ii) setting aside of the order dated 22-12-2008 passed by the third respondent (Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1), Hyderabad) in ITNS 65 and the consequential appellate order dated 26-2-2009 passed by the second respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) III, Hyderabad) in ITA No. 02211CI(A)-III/08-09. When the matter was taken up, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that nothing further remained for adjudication and the matter had become infructuous. The Court disposed of the writ petition as infructuous, granting liberty to the parties to revive the petition or file a fresh petition should any grievance or subsequent cause of action arise; there was no order as to costs and pending miscellaneous petitions were closed. The constitutional challenge to Section 40(a)(ia) was not adjudicated.

¶1

134471

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE S TE OF TELANGANA AT HYDE BAD (Special Original urisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE EIGH H DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AN TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESE T

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JU TICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 6901 0F 2009

¶7

Between:

¶8

lV/s. A.P. Met Engineering Ltd., 607, treet No.3, Tarnaka, Secunderabad, Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Di or ...PETITIONER

¶9

. AND

¶10

1 The Union of lndia, Rep. by its Secreta ,^Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue North Block, Central Secretari t, New Delhi.

¶11

2 The Co mm Ssto n e I of nco m Tax (A^p als) lll, Hyderabad 3 Th e A S om m Ss on I of n ome Tax Circle 2(1) Hyderabad.

¶12

...RESPONDENTS

¶13

Petition under Article 226 of the Con titution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or irection more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus (i) declaring Se on 40(a)(ia) of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 as ultra vires of the Constitution of lndi (ii) to declare Section 40 (a)(ia) of the lncome Tax Ac^-l961 as unreasonable, v lative of Article 14 and 19(1 )(g) of the Constitution of lndia (iii) to set aside the O er of the Third respondent in ITNS 65 dt.22-12-2008 and the consequential appe late Order of the 2nd Respondent in ITA No. 0221lCI(A)-ttt/08-09 dt. 26-2-2009.

¶14

LA. NO: I OF 2009 PMP. NO: 9027 OF 2009

¶15

Petition under Section 151 CPC prdyin that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings pursuant to the order o the 3rd respondent dt. 22-12-2008 in ITNS 65 and the consequential appellate ord r of the 2nd respondent in ITA No.

¶16

02211o11(A)-lll/08-09 dt.^26-2-2009 during the^pendency of the writ petition otherwise the^{petitioner will} be^put to irreparable loss and injury pending disposal of the above^{writ petition.}

¶17

Counsel^{for the Petitioner:SRIA.SUDERSHAN} REDDY Counsel^{fortheRespondent No.1:} SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, Dy. SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Counsel^{forthe Respondent} Nos.2 & 3: M/s. BOKARO SAPNA REDDY, SENIOR SC INCOME TAX

¶18

The Court made the^following: ORDER

¶19

I I

¶20

THE HONOURABLE SRI J STICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI J STICE NARSING RAO NANDIK NDA

¶21

W.P.No.690l of 2009

¶22

ORDER: @er Hon hlLt.\ri .lustita l'.\ant

¶23

Heard Mr. A. Sudhershan R dy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. B. Sapna l{cd y, learned Senior Standing Counsel lor Inconre 1'ax Departrne t appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶24

l.earned counscl appearing lb the petitioner submits that nothing further remains in thc presen appeal lor adjudication and the matter has thus become in fiuctuo S

¶25

Accordingly. the Writ Petiti n stands disposed of for having become inlructuous granting I bcrty to the parlies to revive the petition or to tlle a liesh petition as the case may be, in the event if any grievance or subsequcnt ause of action arises.^'l-here shall be no order as to costs

¶26

r- -. ,t

¶27

¶28

(ionsequently. miscellaneous petitions pe ndinu- if- anv, shall

stand c L.)sed-

ISWAMY GISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

.'SECTION OFFICER

1 The Secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue North Block, Central Secretariat, New Delhi.

¶35

2 The Commissioner of lncome Tax, (Appeals) lll, Hyderabad. 3 The Asst. Commissioner of lncome Tax, Circle 2(1) Hyderabad. 4 One CC to SRI A.SUDERSHAN REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 5 One CC to M/s. BOKARO SAPNA REDDY, SENIOR SC INCOME TAX loPUCl

¶36