Kerala High Court
M/S Josco Bullion Traders Pvt Ltd vs Union Of India on 20 May, 2024
Author: Dinesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH
MONDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 30TH VAISAKHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 30318 OF 2019
PETITIONER/S:
P.A.JOSE, AGED 71 YEARS
PAYYAPPALLIL HOUSE, PUTHANANGADI, THIRUVATHUKKAL,
KOTTAYAM - 686 001.
BY ADVS. SRI AJAY VOHRA (SR) A.KUMAR (SR)
SRI.P.J.ANILKUMAR, SMTG.MINI(1748)
SRI.P.S.SREE PRASAD, SRI.AJAY V.ANAND
RESPONDENT/S:
1 UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NORTH
BLOCK, NEW DELHI - 110001.
2 THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT
OF INDIA, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI - 110001.
3 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,
KOTTAYAM - 686 001.
4 THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF IINCOME TAX,
CIRCLE - 1, INCOME TAX OFFICE, PUBLIC LIBRARY BUILDING,
SHASTRI ROAD, KOTTAYAM - 686 002.
BY ADVS. Mr.P.R.AJITH KUMAR, CGC
SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING RESERVED ON 01.04.2024, ALONG
WITH WP(C).1529/2024, 17949/2020 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON
20.05.2024, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) Nos.30318/2019, 1529/2024, 17949/2020, 17828/2020, 17964/2020,
17972/2020, 28444/2021, 29846/2021, 30448/2021, 30354/2019, 30340/2019,
30373/2019, 32237/2019
-2-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH
MONDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 30TH VAISAKHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 1529 OF 2024
PETITIONER/S:
M/S JOSCO BULLION TRADERS PVT LTD,
CENTRAL JUNCTION, BUILDING NO. XII/759, K.K.ROAD, KOTTAYAM,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MR. P.A.JOSE., PIN -
686001
BY ADVS.SRI AJAY VOHRA (SR), A.KUMAR (SR.)
P.J.ANILKUMAR, G.MINI(1748)
P.S.SREE PRASAD, ARUN R.
RESPONDENT/S:
1 UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NORTH
BLOCK, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001
2 THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT
OF INDIA, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001
3 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,
BAKER HILL, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686002
4 THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,
CIRCLE & TPS, INCOME TAX OFFICE, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT
COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC LIBRARY BUILDING SHASTRI ROAD,
KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686001
5 ASSESSMENT UNIT/VERIFICATION UNIT/TECHNICAL UNIT/REVIEW
UNIT,
W.P.(C) Nos.30318/2019, 1529/2024, 17949/2020, 17828/2020, 17964/2020,
17972/2020, 28444/2021, 29846/2021, 30448/2021, 30354/2019, 30340/2019,
30373/2019, 32237/2019
-3-
INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT
CENTRE, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING RESERVED ON 01.04.2024, ALONG
WITH WP(C).30318/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 20.05.2024
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) Nos.30318/2019, 1529/2024, 17949/2020, 17828/2020, 17964/2020,
17972/2020, 28444/2021, 29846/2021, 30448/2021, 30354/2019, 30340/2019,
30373/2019, 32237/2019
-4-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH
MONDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 30TH VAISAKHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 17949 OF 2020
PETITIONER/S:
JOSCO JEWELLERS PVT. LTD,
ROOM NO. 13, REJIV GANDHI SHOPPING COMPLEX, KOTTAYAM,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI. P.A JOSE.
BY ADVS. SRI AJAY VOHRA (SR), A.KUMAR (SR.)
P.J.ANILKUMAR, G.MINI(1748), P.S.SREE PRASAD
JOB ABRAHAM, AJAY V.ANAND, R.ARUN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF
REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NORTH
BLOCK, NEW DELHI 110001.
2 THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT
OF INDIA, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI 110 001.
3 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,
PUBLIC LIBRARY BUILDING, SHASTRI ROAD, KOTTAYAM 686 001.
4 THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,
CIRCLE AND TPS, INCOME TAX OFFICE, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT
COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC LIBRARY BUILDING, SHASTRI ROAD,
KOTTAYAM 686 001.
BY ADV SHRI.P.R.AJITH KUMAR, CGC
W.P.(C) Nos.30318/2019, 1529/2024, 17949/2020, 17828/2020, 17964/2020,
17972/2020, 28444/2021, 29846/2021, 30448/2021, 30354/2019, 30340/2019,
30373/2019, 32237/2019
-5-
SRI JOSE JOSEPH SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING RESERVED ON 01.04.2024, ALONG
WITH WP(C).30318/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 20.05.2024
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) Nos.30318/2019, 1529/2024, 17949/2020, 17828/2020, 17964/2020,
17972/2020, 28444/2021, 29846/2021, 30448/2021, 30354/2019, 30340/2019,
30373/2019, 32237/2019
-6-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH
MONDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 30TH VAISAKHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 17828 OF 2020
PETITIONER/S:
P.P.ALPHONSA,
AGED 62 YEARS
PAYYAPPALLIL HOUSE, PUTHANANGADI, THIURVATHUKKAL,
KOTTAYAM-686001.
BY ADVS.SRI AJAY VOHRA (SR), A.KUMAR (SR.)
P.J.ANILKUMAR, G.MINI(1748), P.S.SREE PRASAD
JOB ABRAHAM, AJAY V.ANAND, R.ARUN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NORTH
BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001.
2 THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT
OF INDIA, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001.
3 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,
KOTTAYAM-686001.
4 THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,
CIRCLE AND TPS, INCOME TAX OFFICE, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT
COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC LIBRARY BUILDING, SHASTRI ROAD,
KOTTAYAM-686 001.
W.P.(C) Nos.30318/2019, 1529/2024, 17949/2020, 17828/2020, 17964/2020,
17972/2020, 28444/2021, 29846/2021, 30448/2021, 30354/2019, 30340/2019,
30373/2019, 32237/2019
-7-
BY ADV SHRI.P.R.AJITH KUMAR, CGC
SRI JOSE JOSEPH SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING RESERVED ON 01.04.2024, ALONG
WITH WP(C).30318/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 20.05.2024
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) Nos.30318/2019, 1529/2024, 17949/2020, 17828/2020, 17964/2020,
17972/2020, 28444/2021, 29846/2021, 30448/2021, 30354/2019, 30340/2019,
30373/2019, 32237/2019
-8-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH
MONDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 30TH VAISAKHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 17964 OF 2020
PETITIONER/S:
JOSCO BULLION TRADERS PVT. LTD.,
CENTRAL JUNCTION, BUILDING NO. XII/759, K.K. ROAD, KOTTAYAM
- 686001, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MR. P.A JOSE.
BY ADVS. SRI AJAY VOHRA (SR), A.KUMAR (SR.)
P.J.ANILKUMAR, G.MINI(1748), P.S.SREE PRASAD
JOB ABRAHAM, AJAY V.ANAND
RESPONDENT/S:
1 UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NORTH
BLOCK, NEW DELHI- 110001.
2 THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT
OF INDIA, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI - 110001.
3 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,
KOTTAYAM - 686001.
4 THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,
CIRCLE AND TPS, INCOME TAX OFFICE, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT
COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC LIBRARY BUILDING, SHASTRI ROAD,
KOTTAYAM - 686001.
W.P.(C) Nos.30318/2019, 1529/2024, 17949/2020, 17828/2020, 17964/2020,
17972/2020, 28444/2021, 29846/2021, 30448/2021, 30354/2019, 30340/2019,
30373/2019, 32237/2019
-9-
BY ADV SHRI.P.R.AJITH KUMAR, CGC
SRI JOSE JOSEPH SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING RESERVED ON 01.04.2024, ALONG
WITH WP(C).30318/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 20.05.2024
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) Nos.30318/2019, 1529/2024, 17949/2020, 17828/2020, 17964/2020,
17972/2020, 28444/2021, 29846/2021, 30448/2021, 30354/2019, 30340/2019,
30373/2019, 32237/2019
-10-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH
MONDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 30TH VAISAKHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 17972 OF 2020
PETITIONER/S:
P.A.JOSE,
AGED 72 YEARS
PAYYAPPALLIL HOUSE, PUTHANANGADI,. THIRUVATHUKKAL,
KOTTAYAM 686 001.
BY ADVS. AJAY VOHRA (SR), A.KUMAR (SR.)
P.J.ANILKUMAR, G.MINI(1748), P.S.SREE PRASAD
JOB ABRAHAM, AJAY V.ANAND
RESPONDENT/S:
1 UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NORTH
BLOCK, NEW DELHI 110 001.
2 THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT
OF INDIA, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI 110 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHAIRMAN.
3 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,
KOTTAYAM 686 001.
4 THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,
CIRCLE AND TPS, INCOME TA OFFICE, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT
COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC LIBRARY BUILDING, SHASTRI ROAD,
KOTTAYAM 686 001.
W.P.(C) Nos.30318/2019, 1529/2024, 17949/2020, 17828/2020, 17964/2020,
17972/2020, 28444/2021, 29846/2021, 30448/2021, 30354/2019, 30340/2019,
30373/2019, 32237/2019
-11-
BY ADV SHRI.P.R.AJITH KUMAR, CGC
SRI JOSE JOSEPH SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING RESERVED ON 01.04.2024 ALONG
WITH WP(C).30318/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 20.05.2024,
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) Nos.30318/2019, 1529/2024, 17949/2020, 17828/2020, 17964/2020,
17972/2020, 28444/2021, 29846/2021, 30448/2021, 30354/2019, 30340/2019,
30373/2019, 32237/2019
-12-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH
MONDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 30TH VAISAKHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 28444 OF 2021
PETITIONER/S:
M/S JOSCO BULLION TRADERS PVT LTD,
CENTRAL JUNCTION, BUILDING NO. XII/757 K.K ROAD, KOTTAYAM
686 001, REPRESENTED ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. MR P.A JOSE.
BY ADVS. SRI AJAY VOHRA (SR), A.KUMAR (SR.)
P.J.ANILKUMAR, G.MINI(1748)
P.S.SREE PRASAD, AJAY V.ANAND
RESPONDENT/S:
1 UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NORTH
BLOCK, NEW DELHI 110 001.
2 THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT
OF INDIA, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI 110 001.
3 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,
KOTTAYAM 686 001.
4 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,
CIRCLE-1, INCOME TAX OFFICE, PUBLIC LIBRARY BUILDING,
SHASTRI ROAD, KOTTAYAM 686 001.
5 ADDITIONAL/JOINT/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,
NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE DELHI 110 001.
W.P.(C) Nos.30318/2019, 1529/2024, 17949/2020, 17828/2020, 17964/2020,
17972/2020, 28444/2021, 29846/2021, 30448/2021, 30354/2019, 30340/2019,
30373/2019, 32237/2019
-13-
BY ADVS.
NAVANEETH.N.NATH, SHRI.VISHNU PRADEEP, CGC
SRI JOSE JOSEPH SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING RESERVED ON 01.04.2024 ALONG
WITH WP(C).30318/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 20.05.2024,
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) Nos.30318/2019, 1529/2024, 17949/2020, 17828/2020, 17964/2020,
17972/2020, 28444/2021, 29846/2021, 30448/2021, 30354/2019, 30340/2019,
30373/2019, 32237/2019
-14-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH
MONDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 30TH VAISAKHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 29846 OF 2021
PETITIONER/S:
P.A.JOSE, AGED 74 YEARS
PAYYAPPALLIL HOUSE, PUTHANANGADI, THIRUVATHUKKAL,
KOTTAYAM 686 001.
BY ADVS. SRI AJAY VOHRA (SR), A.KUMAR (SR.)
P.J.ANILKUMAR, G.MINI(1748), P.S.SREE PRASAD
JOB ABRAHAM, R.ARUN, AJAY V.ANAND
RESPONDENT/S:
1 UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NORTH
BLOCK, NEW DELHI 110 001.
2 THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT
OF INDIA, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI 110 001.
3 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,
KOTTAYAM -686 001.
4 THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,
CIRCLE -1, INCOME TAX OFFICE, PUBLIC LIBRARY BUILDING,
SHASTRI ROAD, KOTTAYAM -686 001.
5 ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF
INCOME TAX,
NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI 110 001.
W.P.(C) Nos.30318/2019, 1529/2024, 17949/2020, 17828/2020, 17964/2020,
17972/2020, 28444/2021, 29846/2021, 30448/2021, 30354/2019, 30340/2019,
30373/2019, 32237/2019
-15-
BY ADVS.
JOSE JOSEPH, SC, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, KERALA
P.K.RAVINDRANATHA MENON (SR.)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING RESERVED ON 01.04.2024, ALONG
WITH WP(C).30318/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 20.05.2024
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) Nos.30318/2019, 1529/2024, 17949/2020, 17828/2020, 17964/2020,
17972/2020, 28444/2021, 29846/2021, 30448/2021, 30354/2019, 30340/2019,
30373/2019, 32237/2019
-16-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH
MONDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 30TH VAISAKHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 30448 OF 2021
PETITIONER/S:
P.P.ALPHONSA, AGED 63 YEARS
PAYYAPPALLIL HOUSE, PUTHANANGADI, THIRUVATHUKKAL,
KOTTAYAM-686 001.
BY ADVS. SRI AJAY VOHRA (SR), A.KUMAR (SR.)
P.J.ANILKUMAR, G.MINI(1748), P.S.SREE PRASAD
JOB ABRAHAM, AJAY V.ANAND
RESPONDENT/S:
1 UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NORTH
BLOCK, NEW DELHI - 110001.
2 THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT
OF INDIA, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI - 110001.
3 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,
KOTTAYAM - 686 001.
4 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,
CIRCLE-1, INCOME TAX OFFICE, PUBLIC LIBRARY BUILDING,
SHASTRI ROAD, KOTTAYAM-686 001.
5 ADDITIONAL/ JOINT / DEPUTY / ASSISTANT,
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NATIONAL FACELESS
ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI - 110001.
W.P.(C) Nos.30318/2019, 1529/2024, 17949/2020, 17828/2020, 17964/2020,
17972/2020, 28444/2021, 29846/2021, 30448/2021, 30354/2019, 30340/2019,
30373/2019, 32237/2019
-17-
BY ADVS.
JOSE JOSEPH, SC, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, KERALA
P.K.RAVINDRANATHA MENON (SR.)
NAVANEETH.N.NATH
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING RESERVED ON 01.04.2024, ALONG
WITH WP(C).30318/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 20.05.2024
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) Nos.30318/2019, 1529/2024, 17949/2020, 17828/2020, 17964/2020,
17972/2020, 28444/2021, 29846/2021, 30448/2021, 30354/2019, 30340/2019,
30373/2019, 32237/2019
-18-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH
MONDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 30TH VAISAKHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 30354 OF 2019
PETITIONER/S:
M/S JOSCO GOLD CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED
JOSCO COMPLEX, NAGAMPADAM, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS
GENERAL MANAGER MR.SABU THOMAS.
BY ADVS. AJAY VOHRA (SR), A.KUMAR (SR)
SRI.P.J.ANILKUMAR, SMTG.MINI(1748)
SHRI.JOB ABRAHAM, SRI.AJAY V.ANAND, SRI.R.ARUN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NORTH
BLOCK, NEW DELHI - 110 001.
2 THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT
OF INDIA, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI - 110 001.
3 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,
KOTTAYAM.
4 THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,
CIRCLE-I, INCOME TAX OFFICE, PUBLIC LIBRARY BUILDING, SHASTRI
ROAD, KOTTAYAM.
W.P.(C) Nos.30318/2019, 1529/2024, 17949/2020, 17828/2020, 17964/2020,
17972/2020, 28444/2021, 29846/2021, 30448/2021, 30354/2019, 30340/2019,
30373/2019, 32237/2019
-19-
BY ADVS.
Mr.P.R.AJITH KUMAR, CGC
SRI.P.K.RAVINDRANATHA MENON (SR.)
SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING RESERVED ON 01.04.2024, ALONG
WITH WP(C).30318/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 20.05.
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) Nos.30318/2019, 1529/2024, 17949/2020, 17828/2020, 17964/2020,
17972/2020, 28444/2021, 29846/2021, 30448/2021, 30354/2019, 30340/2019,
30373/2019, 32237/2019
-20-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH
MONDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 30TH VAISAKHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 30340 OF 2019
PETITIONER/S:
M/S JOSCO JEWELLERS PVT.LTD,
ROOM NO.13, RAJIV GANDHI SHOPPING COMPLEX, KOTTAYAM,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SRI.P.A.JOSE.
BY ADVS. SRI AJAY VOHRA (SR), A.KUMAR (SR.)
P.J.ANILKUMAR, G.MINI(1748), P.S.SREE PRASAD
JOB ABRAHAM, AJAY V.ANAND, R.ARUN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NORTH
BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110 001.
2 THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT
OF INDIA, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110 001.
3 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,
KOTTAYAM-686 001.
4 THE ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,
CIRCLE-1, INCOME TAX OFFICE, PUBLIC LIBRARY BUILDING,
SHASTRI ROAD, KOTTAYAM-686 002.
W.P.(C) Nos.30318/2019, 1529/2024, 17949/2020, 17828/2020, 17964/2020,
17972/2020, 28444/2021, 29846/2021, 30448/2021, 30354/2019, 30340/2019,
30373/2019, 32237/2019
-21-
BY ADVS.
SHRI.P.R.AJITH KUMAR, CGC
P.K.RAVINDRANATHA MENON (SR.)
JOSE JOSEPH, SC, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, KERALA
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING RESERVED ON 01.04.2024, ALONG
WITH WP(C).30318/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 20.05.2024
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) Nos.30318/2019, 1529/2024, 17949/2020, 17828/2020, 17964/2020,
17972/2020, 28444/2021, 29846/2021, 30448/2021, 30354/2019, 30340/2019,
30373/2019, 32237/2019
-22-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH
MONDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 30TH VAISAKHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 30373 OF 2019
PETITIONER/S:
M/S JOSCO BULLION TRADERS PVT.LTD.
CENTRAL JUNCTION, BUILDING NO.XII/759, K.K. ROAD, KOTTAYAM-
686 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MR.P.A.JOSE.
BY ADVS. SRI AJAY VOHRA (SR), SRI.A.KUMAR (SR)
SRI.P.J.ANILKUMAR, SMT G.MINI(1748), SRI.P.S.SREE PRASAD
SHRI.JOB ABRAHAM, SRI.AJAY V.ANAND, SRI.R.ARUN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NORTH
BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110 001.
2 THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT
OF INDIA, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110 001.
3 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
KOTTAYAM-686 001.
4 THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
CIRCLE-1, INCOME TAX OFFICE, PUBLIC LIBRARY BUILDING,
SHASTRI ROAD, KOTTAYAM-686 002.
W.P.(C) Nos.30318/2019, 1529/2024, 17949/2020, 17828/2020, 17964/2020,
17972/2020, 28444/2021, 29846/2021, 30448/2021, 30354/2019, 30340/2019,
30373/2019, 32237/2019
-23-
BY ADVS.
Mr.P.R.AJITH KUMAR, CGC
SRI.P.K.RAVINDRANATHA MENON (SR.)
SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING RESERVED ON 01.04.2024, ALONG
WITH WP(C).30318/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 20.05.2024
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) Nos.30318/2019, 1529/2024, 17949/2020, 17828/2020, 17964/2020,
17972/2020, 28444/2021, 29846/2021, 30448/2021, 30354/2019, 30340/2019,
30373/2019, 32237/2019
-24-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH
MONDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 30TH VAISAKHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 32237 OF 2019
PETITIONER/S:
JOSGOLD, BUILDING NO.IX/891 KALARIKKAL BAZAR, CENTRAL
JUNCTION, KOTTAYAM-686001 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING
PARTNER MR.BABU M PHILIP
BY ADVS.SRI AJAY VOHRA (SR), SRI A.KUMAR (SR)
SRI.P.J.ANILKUMAR, SMTG.MINI(1748)
SRI.P.S.SREE PRASAD, SHRI.JOB ABRAHAM
SRI.AJAY V.ANAND
RESPONDENT/S:
1 UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NORTH
BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001
2 THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT
OF INDIA, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001
3 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
KOTTAYAM-686001
4 THE ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,
CIRCLE-1, INCOME TAX OFFICE, PUBLIC LIBRARY BUILDING,
SHASTRI ROAD, KOTTAYAM-686001
W.P.(C) Nos.30318/2019, 1529/2024, 17949/2020, 17828/2020, 17964/2020,
17972/2020, 28444/2021, 29846/2021, 30448/2021, 30354/2019, 30340/2019,
30373/2019, 32237/2019
-25-
BY ADVS.
Mr.P.R.AJITH KUMAR, CGC
SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING RESERVED ON 01.04.2024 , ALONG
WITH WP(C).30318/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 20.05.2024
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) Nos.30318/2019, 1529/2024, 17949/2020, 17828/2020, 17964/2020,
17972/2020, 28444/2021, 29846/2021, 30448/2021, 30354/2019, 30340/2019,
30373/2019, 32237/2019
-26-
JUDGMENT
WP(C) Nos.30318/2019, 1529/2024, 17949/2020,
17828/2020, 17964/2020, 17972/2020, 28444/2021,
29846/2021, 30448/2021, 30354/2019, 30340/2019,
30373/2019, 32237/2019
Heard Sri Ajay Vohra and Sri A Kumar learned Senior
Counsels, assisted by Adv G Mini, for the petitioners and Sri
Jose Joseph, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Income
Tax Department.
2. The present batch of writ petitions involve almost
common questions of fact and law; therefore, the same have
been heard together and are being decided by this common
judgment. The facts of the lead petition, W.P.(C)
No.30318/2019, are taken note of to understand the issue(s)
involved in these writ petitions.
W.P.(C) Nos.30318/2019, 1529/2024, 17949/2020, 17828/2020, 17964/2020,
17972/2020, 28444/2021, 29846/2021, 30448/2021, 30354/2019, 30340/2019,
30373/2019, 32237/2019
Facts in brief:
3. The petitioner is an individual resident and an
assessee to Income Tax for the purposes of the Income Tax Act
1961 and the Rules made thereunder. The petitioner is
engaged in the business of trading of jewellery and articles of
gold. The petitioner established and commenced its business
operation in the year 1978. It is said that the petitioner has
been maintaining regular books of accounts since the
inception of its business venture in the year 1978. The
petitioner has been following the mercantile system of
accounting and has been consistently valuing its
stock/inventory at a lower cost or market value, determining
cost using the Last-In-First-Out (LIFO) method. The Revenue
Department had been regularly accepting the books of
accounts of the petitioner. The petitioner would value the
W.P.(C) Nos.30318/2019, 1529/2024, 17949/2020, 17828/2020, 17964/2020,
17972/2020, 28444/2021, 29846/2021, 30448/2021, 30354/2019, 30340/2019,
30373/2019, 32237/2019
stock-in-trade under the LIFO method at the start of the
accounting period.
3.1 The petitioner applied the same method to value
the stock-in-trade for the Financial Year 2016-17 relevant to
the Assessment Year 2017-18, commencing with effect from
01.04.2016 and ending 31.03.2017. Vide Notification
No.S.O.3079(E) dated 29.09.2016 the Central Government
notified the Income Computation and Disclosure Standards
(ICDS), in exercise of powers under Section 145(2) of the
Income Tax Act 1961, for application and adoption with effect
from Assessment 2017-18. The ICDS so notified were made
applicable from the Assessment Year 2017-18 to assessees who
are liable to get accounts audited under Section 44AB of the
Act, following the mercantile system of accounting for
computation of income chargeable under the heads 'Profits
and Gains of Business or Profession' (PGBP) or 'Income from
W.P.(C) Nos.30318/2019, 1529/2024, 17949/2020, 17828/2020, 17964/2020,
17972/2020, 28444/2021, 29846/2021, 30448/2021, 30354/2019, 30340/2019,
30373/2019, 32237/2019
Other Sources'.
3.2 Vide Clause 16 of the ICDS(II), a change has been
brought with respect to the methodology of valuation of the
stock/inventory. It has been mandated that 'Cost of Inventories
.... shall be assigned by using First-In-First-Out (FIFO), or weighted
average cost formula'. Clause 22 provides that the value of the
opening stock shall be the closing stock of the immediately
preceding year. Clauses 16 and 22 of the ICDS (II) are extracted
hereunder:
"First-in First-out and Weighted Average Cost Formula
16. Cost of inventories, other than the inventory dealt with in
paragraph 13, shall be assigned by using the First-in First-out
(FIFO) or weighted average cost formula. The formula used
shall reflect the fairest possible approximation to the cost
incurred in bringing the items of inventory to their present
location and condition.
(emphasis supplied)
17. The FIFO formula assumes that the items of inventory
which were purchased or produced first are consumed or sold
first, and consequently, the items remaining in inventory at
W.P.(C) Nos.30318/2019, 1529/2024, 17949/2020, 17828/2020, 17964/2020,
17972/2020, 28444/2021, 29846/2021, 30448/2021, 30354/2019, 30340/2019,
30373/2019, 32237/2019
the end of the period are those most recently purchased or
produced. Under the weighted average cost formula, the cost
of each item is determined from the weighted average of the
cost of similar items at the beginning of a period and the cost
of similar items purchased or produced during the period.
The average shall be calculated on a periodic basis, or as each
additional shipment is received, depending upon the
circumstances.
Value of Opening Inventory
22. The value of the inventory as on the beginning of the
previous year shall be:
(i) the cost of inventory available, if any, on the day of the
commencement of the business when the business has
commenced during the previous year; and
(ii) the value of the inventory as on the close of the
immediately preceding previous year, in any other case."
Chamber of Tax Consultants v. Union of India1
4. The Delhi High Court in Chamber of Tax Consultants
v. Union of India (supra), where Notification No.87/2016 dated
(2018) 400 ITR 178 (Delhi)
W.P.(C) Nos.30318/2019, 1529/2024, 17949/2020, 17828/2020, 17964/2020,
17972/2020, 28444/2021, 29846/2021, 30448/2021, 30354/2019, 30340/2019,
30373/2019, 32237/2019
29.09.2016 notifying the ICDS was challenged, considered the
following questions:
"(i) Whether the amendments to Section 145 are an
instance of delegation by Parliament of essential legislative
powers to the Central Government?
(ii) Are the ICDS an instance of excessive delegation of
legislative powers? Whether the impugned ICDS are contrary
to the settled law as explained in various judicial precedents
and are, therefore, liable to be struck down?
(iii) Whether the impugned amendments to Section 145
of the Act and the consequential ICDS and Circular violate
Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 141, 144 and 265 of the Constitution?"
4.1 The Delhi High Court, on the background of
Notification No.87/2016 dated 29.09.2016, summarised thus:
By Notification dated 25.01.1996, the Central Government
notified two Accounting Standards based on which accounts of
the assessees were to be maintained, i.e., (i) AS-1, "Disclosure
of accounting policies and accounting standards; (ii) AS-2,
Disclosure of prior period items and Extraordinary items and
W.P.(C) Nos.30318/2019, 1529/2024, 17949/2020, 17828/2020, 17964/2020,
17972/2020, 28444/2021, 29846/2021, 30448/2021, 30354/2019, 30340/2019,
30373/2019, 32237/2019
changes in accounting policies". The Accounting Standards
were adopted from the Accounting Standards issued by the
Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI), a statutory
body established under an act of Parliament to regulate the
profession of Chartered Accountants.
4.2 Section 145 of the Income Tax Act (for short, 'the
Act') was amended by the Finance Act 1995 with effect from
01.04.1997, which was intended to restrict the options
available to an assessee following a system of accounting,
other than mercantile or cash. The Legislature felt the need to
provide Accounting Standards for income computation. The
Central Government could, thus, by notification in the Official
Gazette notify from time to time Accounting Standards (AS) to
be followed by any class of assessees or in respect of any class of
income'. The Central Government notified the Accounting
Standards on 25.01.1996.
W.P.(C) Nos.30318/2019, 1529/2024, 17949/2020, 17828/2020, 17964/2020,
17972/2020, 28444/2021, 29846/2021, 30448/2021, 30354/2019, 30340/2019,
30373/2019, 32237/2019
4.3 On December 7, 2006, the Ministry of Corporate
Affairs (MCA) notified as many as 28 Accounting Standards of
the ICAI under Section 211 of the Companies Act 1956 and
mandated that the same be followed by the Companies. The
Central Board of Direct Taxes in December 2010 constituted
the Accounting Standards Committee (AS Committee)
comprising Indian Revenue Services (IRS) officers from the
Income Tax Department and professionals like Chartered
Accountants, with the following objects:
"(i) to study the harmonisation of ASs issued by the ICAI with
the direct tax laws in India, and suggest ASs which need to be
adopted under section 145(2) of the Act along with the
relevant modifications;
(ii) to suggest a method for determination of the tax base
(book profit) for the purpose of Minimum Alternate Tax
(MAT) in the case of companies migrating to International
Financial Reporting Standards ("IFRS") (to be known as Ind-
AS) in the initial year of adoption and thereafter; and
(iii) to suggest appropriate amendments to the Act in view of
the transition to Ind-AS regime."
W.P.(C) Nos.30318/2019, 1529/2024, 17949/2020, 17828/2020, 17964/2020,
17972/2020, 28444/2021, 29846/2021, 30448/2021, 30354/2019, 30340/2019,
30373/2019, 32237/2019
4.3.1 The said Committee examined 31 Accounting
Standards issued by the ICAI. The Committee drafted 14 Tax
Accounting Standards and recommended that the said
standards be notified under the Act only for the computation
of taxable income. The Committee was of the view that 'a
taxpayer would not be required to maintain the books of accounts
based on the AS notified under the Act'.
4.4 The position so far as Corporates are concerned is
that there are two methods of accounting to be followed: One
under GSR 739(E) notified by the MCA on December 7, 2006, in
terms of Section 211 of the Companies Act 1956, and the other
is for computation of taxable income which is as a result of the
convergence of Indian Accounting Standards with the IFRS.
Both have different methods of recognition of the revenue,
assets, and liabilities. To address this gap, the Central Board
of Direct Taxes constituted the Committee, referred to above,
W.P.(C) Nos.30318/2019, 1529/2024, 17949/2020, 17828/2020, 17964/2020,
17972/2020, 28444/2021, 29846/2021, 30448/2021, 30354/2019, 30340/2019,
30373/2019, 32237/2019
which submitted its first report in August 2011, wherein the
Committee, in its recommendations, said that the standards
proposed to be notified in terms of Section 145(2) of the Act
should apply only to the computation of taxable income
without any compulsion to maintain books as per the notified
Accounting Standards. The Committee recommended the use
of fourteen of the thirty-one Accounting Standards issued by
the ICAI and the Accounting Standards to be identified as ICDS
to provide a comprehensive framework for computing taxable
income. The final report of the Committee was submitted in
October 2013, and thereafter, an amendment to Section 145 of
the Act was brought about in 2014. The ICDS was notified by
Notification No.S.O.892(E) dated 31.03.2015 and was made
applicable from the Financial Year 2015-16 [Assessment Year
2016-17]. It is said that prior thereto, detailed consultations
were held with the stakeholders. Based on the representations
W.P.(C) Nos.30318/2019, 1529/2024, 17949/2020, 17828/2020, 17964/2020,
17972/2020, 28444/2021, 29846/2021, 30448/2021, 30354/2019, 30340/2019,
30373/2019, 32237/2019
received, the Central Government decided to defer the
commencement date of the ICDS from April 1, 2015, to April 1,
2016, i.e., relevant Financial Year 2017-18. Eventually, the
impugned notification dated 29.09.2016 was issued making the
ICDS applicable effective from April 1, 2017.
5. Circular No.10 of 2017, issued by the Central Board
of Direct Taxes on 23.03.2017, is titled "Clarifications on Income
Computation and Disclosure Standards (ICDS) notified under Section
145(2) of the Income Tax Act 1961". The Circular acknowledges
that it had been brought to the notice of the Central Board of
Direct Taxes that some of the ICDS may require
"amendment/clarification for proper implementation". The matter
was then referred to the Committee which, after duly
consulting the stakeholders recommended a two-fold
approach for the implementation of ICDS: One was to amend
the ICDS itself and the other was to issue clarifications by way
W.P.(C) Nos.30318/2019, 1529/2024, 17949/2020, 17828/2020, 17964/2020,
17972/2020, 28444/2021, 29846/2021, 30448/2021, 30354/2019, 30340/2019,
30373/2019, 32237/2019
of FAQs. Thus, the Delhi High Court in the judgment of
Chamber of Tax Consultants (supra) held that Circular No.10 of
2017 was in the form of FAQs. The Delhi High Court has also
been of the view that Circular No.10 of 2017 made it clear that
ICDS is intended to prevail over judicial precedents which
could be to the contrary.
5.1 The Delhi High Court further held that the
amendments to Section 145 permitted the Central
Government, as a delegate of the Legislature, to notify
standards for income computation but not to bring about
changes to the settled principles as laid down in judicial
precedents which seek to interpret and explain statutory
provisions contained in the Act. If such power is permitted to
be exercised by the Central Government, then, clearly, such
power would be an instance of unfettered power in the hands
of the Executive which is unguided and uncanalised. Article
W.P.(C) Nos.30318/2019, 1529/2024, 17949/2020, 17828/2020, 17964/2020,
17972/2020, 28444/2021, 29846/2021, 30448/2021, 30354/2019, 30340/2019,
30373/2019, 32237/2019
265 of the Constitution of India provides that no tax shall be
levied or collected except under the authority of law. The
power under Section 145(2) of the Income Tax Act cannot
permit changing the basic principles of accounting that have
been recognized in the various provisions of the Act unless, of
course, corresponding amendments are carried out to the Act itself.
Such amendments would be consistent with an
acknowledgement that, as far as the Act is concerned,
changing the method of accounting for the computation of
taxable income would partake in an essential legislative
function. The Delhi High Court held that Section 145(2), as
amended, is to be read down to restrict the power of the
Central Government to notify ICDS that do not seek to override
the binding judicial precedents or provisions of the Act. The
power to enact a validation law is an essential legislative
power that can be exercised only by the Parliament and not by
W.P.(C) Nos.30318/2019, 1529/2024, 17949/2020, 17828/2020, 17964/2020,
17972/2020, 28444/2021, 29846/2021, 30448/2021, 30354/2019, 30340/2019,
30373/2019, 32237/2019
the Executive.
5.2 In answer to Question No. (ii), i.e., Excessive
delegation of legislative powers, the Delhi High Court held that
there are no guiding principles in Section 145(2) of the Act for
the scope and ambit of delegated power of the Central
Government. A mere notification under Section 119 of the Act
cannot go beyond the provisions of the Act to bring to tax any
income not so envisaged by the Act. The tax cannot be levied
by way of an Executive action or by way of administrative
instruction.
5.3 The summary of the findings of the Delhi High Court
is extracted hereunder:
"The findings in this judgment may be summarised thus:
(i) Section 145(2), as amended, has to be read down to restrict
the power of the Central Government to notify ICDS that do
not seek to override binding judicial precedents or provisions
of the Act. The power to enact a validation law is an essential
legislative power that can be exercised, in the context of the
W.P.(C) Nos.30318/2019, 1529/2024, 17949/2020, 17828/2020, 17964/2020,
17972/2020, 28444/2021, 29846/2021, 30448/2021, 30354/2019, 30340/2019,
30373/2019, 32237/2019
Act, only by Parliament and not by the executive. If section
145(2) of the Act as amended is not so read down it would be
ultra vires the Act and article 141 read with articles 144 and
265 of the Constitution.
(ii) The ICDS is not meant to overrule the provisions of the
Act, the Rules thereunder and the judicial precedents
applicable thereto as they stand.
(iii) The decision in J. K. Industries Ltd. v. Union of India (supra)
is distinguishable in its application to the case on hand.
(iv) ICDS I which does away with the concept of "prudence" is
contrary to the Act and binding judicial precedents and is
therefore unsustainable in law.
(v) ICDS II pertaining to valuation of inventories and
eliminates the distinction between a continuing partnership
business after dissolution from one which is discontinued
upon dissolution is contrary to the decision of the Supreme
Court in Shakti Trading Co. (supra). It fails to acknowledge that
the valuation of inventory at market value upon settlement
of accounts of the outgoing partner is distinct from the
valuation of the inventory in the books of the business which
is continuing. ICDS II is held to be ultra vires the Act and
struck down as such.
(vi) The treatment to retention money under paragraph 10(a)
in ICDS III will have to be determined on a case-to-case basis
by applying settled principles of accrual of income. By
W.P.(C) Nos.30318/2019, 1529/2024, 17949/2020, 17828/2020, 17964/2020,
17972/2020, 28444/2021, 29846/2021, 30448/2021, 30354/2019, 30340/2019,
30373/2019, 32237/2019
deploying ICDS III in a manner that seeks to bring to tax the
retention money, the receipt of which is
uncertain/conditional, at the earliest possible stage,
irrespective of the facts, the respondents would be acting
contrary to the settled position in law as explained in the
decisions referred to in para 68 and to that extent para 10(a)
of ICDS III would be rendered ultra vires.
(vii) Para 12 of ICDS III read with para 5 of ICDS IX, dealing
with borrowing costs, makes it clear that no incidental
income can be reduced from borrowing costs. This is contrary
to the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Bokaro Steel
Limited (supra) and is therefore struck down.
(viii) Para 5 of ICDS IV requires an assessee to recognize
income from export incentive in the year of making the claim
if there is "reasonable certainty" of its ultimate collection.
This is contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court in Excel
Industries (supra), and is, therefore, ultra vires the Act and
struck down as such.
(ix) As far as para 6 of ICDS IV is concerned, the proportionate
completion method, as well as the contract completion
method, have been recognized as a valid method of
accounting under the mercantile system of accounting by the
Supreme Court in CIT v. Bilhari Investment Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and
this court in CIT v. Manish Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. and Paras Buildtech
India Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (supra). Therefore, to the extent that para
W.P.(C) Nos.30318/2019, 1529/2024, 17949/2020, 17828/2020, 17964/2020,
17972/2020, 28444/2021, 29846/2021, 30448/2021, 30354/2019, 30340/2019,
30373/2019, 32237/2019
6 of ICDS IV permits only one of the methods, i.e.,
proportionate completion method, it is contrary to the above
decisions, held to be ultra vires the Act and struck down as
such.
(x) Para 8(1) of ICDS IV is not shown to be contrary to any
judicial precedent. There is also no challenge to section
36(1)(vii) of the Act. Accordingly, para 8(1) of ICDS IV is held
to be not ultra vires the Act. Its validity is upheld.
(xi) ICDS VI which states that marked-to-market loss/gain in
case of foreign currency derivatives held for trading or
speculation purposes are not to be allowed, is not in
consonance with the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in
Sutlej Cotton Mills Limited v. CIT (supra), in so far as it relates to
marked-to-market loss arising out of forward exchange
contracts held for trading or speculation purposes. It is,
therefore, held to be ultra vires the Act and struck down as
such.
(xii) ICDS VII which provides that recognition of Government
grants cannot be postponed beyond the date of accrual
receipt, is in conflict with the accrual system of accounting.
To that extent, it is held to be ultra vires the Act and struck
down as such.
(xiii) ICDS VIII pertains to valuation of securities. For those
entities not governed by the RBI to whom Part A of ICDS VIII
is applicable, the accounting prescribed by the AS has to be
W.P.(C) Nos.30318/2019, 1529/2024, 17949/2020, 17828/2020, 17964/2020,
17972/2020, 28444/2021, 29846/2021, 30448/2021, 30354/2019, 30340/2019,
30373/2019, 32237/2019
followed which is different from the ICDS. In effect, such
entities will be required to maintain separate records for
income-tax purposes for every year since the closing value of
the securities would be valued separately for income-tax
purposes and for accounting purposes. To this extent, Part A
of ICDS VIII is held to be ultra vires the Act and is struck down
as such."
Based on the aforesaid conclusion, the Delhi High Court struck
down Notification Nos.87 and 88 of 2016 dated 29.09.2016 and
Circular No.10 of 2017 issued by the Central Board of Direct
Taxes as ultra vires the Act.
6. After the judgment of the Delhi High Court, the
present provisions of Section 145A have been substituted vide
Finance Act 2018 with retrospective effect from 01.04.2017 to
give legitimacy to the ICDS, issued by Notification Nos. 87 and
88 of 2016 dated 29.09.2016. The substituted provision of
Section 145A, on reproduction would read as under:
W.P.(C) Nos.30318/2019, 1529/2024, 17949/2020, 17828/2020, 17964/2020,
17972/2020, 28444/2021, 29846/2021, 30448/2021, 30354/2019, 30340/2019,
30373/2019, 32237/2019
"145A. Method of accounting in certain cases
For the purpose of determining the income chargeable under
the head "Profits and gains of business or profession", -
(i) the valuation of inventory shall be made at lower of actual
cost or net realisable value computed in accordance with the
income computation and disclosure standards notified under
sub-section (2) of section 145;
........."
6.1 Clause (i) of Section 145A of the Act, so substituted,
provides that to determine the income chargeable to tax under
the head "Profits and Gains of Business or Profession", the
valuation of inventories shall be made at lower of actual cost
or net realisable value computed in accordance with the
Income Computation and Disclosure Standards (ICDS) notified
under sub-section (2) of Section 145 of the Act.
6.2 The purpose of substituting Section 145A with
retrospective effect from 01.04.2017, to apply the same in
relation to Assessment Year 2017-18 and subsequent
W.P.(C) Nos.30318/2019, 1529/2024, 17949/2020, 17828/2020, 17964/2020,
17972/2020, 28444/2021, 29846/2021, 30448/2021, 30354/2019, 30340/2019,
30373/2019, 32237/2019
assessment years, is provided in the Memorandum explaining
the provisions in the Finance Bill 2018, as under:
"Recent judicial pronouncements have raised doubts on the
legitimacy of the notified ICDS. However, a large number of
taxpayers have already complied with the provisions of ICDS
for computing income for assessment year 2017-18. In order
to regularize the compliance with the notified ICDS by large
number of taxpayers so as to prevent any further
inconvenience to them, it is proposed to bring the
amendments retrospectively with effect from 1st April 2017
i.e. the date on which the ICDS was made effective and will,
accordingly, apply in relation to the assessment year 2017-18
and subsequent assessment years."
6.3 The result of the substitution in Section 145A with
retrospective effect from 01.04.2017 would be the regularly
adopted method of accounting and valuation of
stock/inventory of the petitioner, wherein the 'cost' of the
inventory used to be arrived by applying LIFO, is now
invalidated and the petitioner would be required to revalue its
W.P.(C) Nos.30318/2019, 1529/2024, 17949/2020, 17828/2020, 17964/2020,
17972/2020, 28444/2021, 29846/2021, 30448/2021, 30354/2019, 30340/2019,
30373/2019, 32237/2019
closing stock for the Assessment Year 2017-18, applying FIFO
based on the retrospective substitution of the provisions of
Section 145A vide Finance Act 2018 after the date of the filing
of the return of the income for the said year.
6.4 According to the petitioner, by the substitution of
the provisions of Section 145A with retrospective effect from
01.04.2017, the closing stock of the petitioner for the Financial
Year 2016-17, relevant to the Assessment Year 2017-18, which
was valued as per the LIFO at Rs.1,92,44,87,015/- has been
revalued, applying FIFO at Rs.2,43,52,03,645/- resulting in
enhancement in value of stock at Rs.51.07 crores which is
sought to be taxed in the hands of the petitioner for the
Assessment Year 2017-18.
Prayers:
7. The present writ petition has been filed with the
following prayers:
W.P.(C) Nos.30318/2019, 1529/2024, 17949/2020, 17828/2020, 17964/2020,
17972/2020, 28444/2021, 29846/2021, 30448/2021, 30354/2019, 30340/2019,
30373/2019, 32237/2019
"It is therefore humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may
call for the records relating to Exhibit-P1 notification dated
29.09.2016 and Exhibit-P4 notice and Exhibit-P6 intimation
rejecting reply and;
A. Declare that Para 16 of ICDS-II and Exhibit-P1 in
notification 87/2016 dated 29.09.2016 prescribing that the
cost of inventories shall be assigned by using the First In First
Out or Weighted Average Cost method to the exclusion of
other methods relating to valuation of inventory, namely,
Last in First Out is arbitrary, illegal, violative of Article 14,
19(1) (g) and 265 of the Constitution of India and is
unconstitutional and is to be rendered nugatory and
unenforceable and;
B. Declare that section 145A introduced by the Finance Act,
2018 w.e.f. 1.4.2017 and made applicable for the assessment
year 2017-18 in substitutions of Section 145A as introduced by
Finance (No.2) Act, 2018 with effect from 1.4.2017 is arbitrary,
illegal, violative of Article 14, 19(1) (g) and 265 of the
Constitution of India and is unconstitutional and is to be
rendered unenforceable;
C. Declare that in case para 16 of the ICDS-II is held to be
mandatory of application, the same has to be read down to
the extent of directing that the opening stock of the year of
first-time adoption of the said para 16 of ICDS-II should also
be valued as per the same method used for valuing closing
W.P.(C) Nos.30318/2019, 1529/2024, 17949/2020, 17828/2020, 17964/2020,
17972/2020, 28444/2021, 29846/2021, 30448/2021, 30354/2019, 30340/2019,
30373/2019, 32237/2019
stock of that year;
D. Issue a Writ of Certiorari such other appropriate writ,
order or direction quashing Exhibit-P4 notice and Exhibit-P6
intimation rejecting the reply of the petitioner.
E. Pass such other appropriate writ, order or direction as this
Hon'ble Court may deem just and fit in the circumstances of
the case."
Submissions:
Petitioners':
8. Sri Ajay Vohra and Sri A Kumar, learned Senior
Counsels, have submitted that Clause 16 of ICDS (II) is ultra
vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India, inasmuch as it
provides unreasonable classification. By virtue of the
application of the provisions of Clause 16 of ICDS (II), the
revaluation of the closing stock of the petitioner applying FIFO
or Weighted average cost method as to the LIFO method earlier
followed by the petitioner, is manifestly contrary to the
fundamental principle of practice of the real income which is
W.P.(C) Nos.30318/2019, 1529/2024, 17949/2020, 17828/2020, 17964/2020,
17972/2020, 28444/2021, 29846/2021, 30448/2021, 30354/2019, 30340/2019,
30373/2019, 32237/2019
the bedrock of application, operation, and implementation of
the provisions of the Act. It is further submitted that the
manner and methodology of the implementation and
application of the provisions of Clause 16 of the ICDS (II) are
fundamentally contrary to the foundational principle of the
Act and the same cannot be employed as the basis for
determining the value of the stock/inventory, especially in
respect of an assessee, such as the petitioner, wherein the
consequence of implementation of the provision of Clause 16
of the ICDS (II) retrospectively with effect from 01.04.2017
would lead to an inevitable consequence and its effects would
be patently flawed and absurd.
8.1 Furthermore, it is submitted that while discarding
the consistently followed and regularly accepted method of
valuation of the stock/inventory applying LIFO, and
mandating the use of FIFO or Weighted average Cost for
W.P.(C) Nos.30318/2019, 1529/2024, 17949/2020, 17828/2020, 17964/2020,
17972/2020, 28444/2021, 29846/2021, 30448/2021, 30354/2019, 30340/2019,
30373/2019, 32237/2019
valuation of closing stock for the relevant year of adoption of
ICDS(II), no basis or rationale whatsoever has been brought
about or outlined demonstrating how and why the method of
valuation of the stock/inventory, consistently and regularly
followed by the petitioner since the inception of its business
and accepted as such by the Revenue, was not reflective of the
correct income of the business of the petitioner. Exclusion of
the consistently followed method of valuation of the stock
/inventory applying LIFO, which has been one of the well-
accepted methods of stock inventory valuation, and the
mandatory application of FIFO or Weighted average cost as the
only method for valuation of the stock/inventory, is wholly
unreasonable being devoid of any rationale and bears no nexus
with the objects sought to be achieved, i.e., determination of
the most accurate picture of the accounts of an assessee. Ergo,
the exclusion of LIFO as an appropriate method for valuing the
W.P.(C) Nos.30318/2019, 1529/2024, 17949/2020, 17828/2020, 17964/2020,
17972/2020, 28444/2021, 29846/2021, 30448/2021, 30354/2019, 30340/2019,
30373/2019, 32237/2019
stock/inventory leads to an unreasonable classification as
there exists no rationale for creating such a classification to the
exclusion of a well-established principle of valuation of
stock/inventory.
8.2 Before substitution of Section 145A of the Finance
Act, 2018 with effect from 01.04.2017, whereby Clause 16 of the
ICDS (II) has been introduced mandating the use of First-In-
First-Out (FIFO) or Weighted Average Cost, the only acceptable
method for valuation of stock/inventory was LIFO. Before
making FIFO mandatory, primacy was accorded to the
taxpayer in its choice of the most appropriate accounting
practice, so long as it demonstrated an accurate picture of the
state of affairs of its business. By making FIFO mandatory, the
Central Government has created a classification to the
exclusion of those assessee, such as the petitioner herein, who
have been consistently and regularly following LIFO as their
W.P.(C) Nos.30318/2019, 1529/2024, 17949/2020, 17828/2020, 17964/2020,
17972/2020, 28444/2021, 29846/2021, 30448/2021, 30354/2019, 30340/2019,
30373/2019, 32237/2019
method of stock/inventory valuation. Such a classification,
apart from being devoid of any intelligible differentia, bears
no rationale, as to why such taxpayers ought to be subjected
to such differential treatment, particularly since no error or
shortcoming has been demonstrated in the adoption of LIFO as
one of the appropriate methods of determining the value of
stock/inventory.
8.3 It is further submitted that in support of the
aforesaid submissions, the learned Senior Counsel appearing
for the petitioners has placed reliance on the following
judgments:
i) Dr Subramanian Swamy vs. Director, CBI2
ii)State of Maharashtra vs. Indian Hotel & Restaurants Assn.3
iii) Mohammad Shujat Ali vs. Union of India4
(2014) 8 SCC 682
(2013) 8 SCC 519
(1975) 3 SCC 76
W.P.(C) Nos.30318/2019, 1529/2024, 17949/2020, 17828/2020, 17964/2020,
17972/2020, 28444/2021, 29846/2021, 30448/2021, 30354/2019, 30340/2019,
30373/2019, 32237/2019
iv) State of Jammu & Kashmir vs. Shri Triloki Nath Khosa5
v) State of Gujarat vs. Shri Ambica Mills Ltd6.
vi) B. Prabhakar Rao vs. State of A.P.7
vii) Sankar Mukherjee vs. Union of India8
viii) Shayara Bano vs. Union of India9
ix) Joseph Shine vs. Union of India10
8.4 Furthermore, the valuation of closing stock with
effect from 01.04.2017 from Assessment Year 2017-2018, while
keeping the value of the opening stock static, results in:
(i) dichotomy of methodologies of stock valuation, i.e.,
application of two different and distinct methods for valuing
opening and closing of stocks in the same year, and (ii)
creation of notional/hypothetical/artificial income due to
(1974) 1 SCC 19
(1974) 4 SCC 656
1985 Supp. SCC 432
1990 Supp SCC 668
(2017) 9 SCC 1
(2019) 3 SCC 39
W.P.(C) Nos.30318/2019, 1529/2024, 17949/2020, 17828/2020, 17964/2020,
17972/2020, 28444/2021, 29846/2021, 30448/2021, 30354/2019, 30340/2019,
30373/2019, 32237/2019
enhancement in the value of closing the stock, as a result of
the stock valuation by applying FIFO or weighted average cost
method.
In other words, while the opening stock for the relevant year
would be determined by importing the closing stock of the
preceding year, i.e., applying LIFO, the closing stock of the
same year, as a result of the adoption of ICDS (II), would
necessarily have to be determined applying an altogether
different methodology viz, FIFO or weighted average cost
method.
8.5 It is further submitted that the opening and closing
stock of a year have to be necessarily valued on the same basis.
The opening stock cannot be valued in a manner different
from the valuation of the closing stock. However, making
mandatory FIFO for the valuation of the stock retrospectively
with effect from 01.04.2017 would result in the opening and
W.P.(C) Nos.30318/2019, 1529/2024, 17949/2020, 17828/2020, 17964/2020,
17972/2020, 28444/2021, 29846/2021, 30448/2021, 30354/2019, 30340/2019,
30373/2019, 32237/2019
closing stock being valued based on two different and distinct
methodologies. The learned counsel for the petitioner has
placed reliance on judgments in Ramswarup Bengalimal vs.
CIT11; K.G Khosla & Co.P.Ltd vs.CIT 12; CIT vs. Doom Dooma India
Ltd.13; CIT vs. Mahavir Aluminum Ltd14.
8.6 The purpose of the valuation of inventory and
crediting the unsold stock is merely to balance the cost of
goods entered on the other side of the account at the time of
their purchase. The valuation of closing/unsold stock is not a
source of income in the hands of the assessee. However, by
making Clause 16 of ICDS (II) mandatory with retrospective
effect from 01.04.2017, despite there being no change or
enhancement in the actual value of the stock in the hands of
the petitioner during the relevant period, i.e., the year of
(1954) 25 ITR 17 (All)
(1975) 99 ITR 574 (Del)
(1993) 200 ITR 496 (Gau)
(2008) 297 ITR 77 (Del)
W.P.(C) Nos.30318/2019, 1529/2024, 17949/2020, 17828/2020, 17964/2020,
17972/2020, 28444/2021, 29846/2021, 30448/2021, 30354/2019, 30340/2019,
30373/2019, 32237/2019
adoption of aforesaid ICDS, the consequence thereof has
resulted in an enhancement to the income of the petitioner to
the tune of Rs. 51.07 Crores, which the Revenue has sought to
tax in the hands of the petitioner during the relevant year.
Taxes under the Income Tax Act are premised on the
generation of 'real' income. Mere accretion based on a
notional/hypothetical/unreal income is and cannot be
construed as a taxable event resulting in chargeability under
the provisions of the Act. It is further submitted that the
income regularly and consistently reported based on the
accounting methodology (including the method of valuation
of the stock) followed by an assessee cannot be invalidated
based on mere change in such accounting practice at the
hands of the Revenue.
8.7 The Revenue does not have the right to unilaterally
impose a method of valuation of closing stock in place of a
W.P.(C) Nos.30318/2019, 1529/2024, 17949/2020, 17828/2020, 17964/2020,
17972/2020, 28444/2021, 29846/2021, 30448/2021, 30354/2019, 30340/2019,
30373/2019, 32237/2019
regularly and consistently followed method which has been
accepted over the years and bring to tax the difference as a
result of unilateral/mandatory replacement/ substitution of
the method of stock valuation, as income of the assessee. It is
therefore submitted that the stipulation of Clause 16 of ICDS
(II) to the extent that it mandates the adoption of FIFO or
weighted average cost method to the exclusion of LIFO, as the
only method for valuation of stock/inventory, suffers from the
vice of unreasonable classification and manifest arbitrariness,
being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and
therefore liable to be struck down.
9. Sri. Ajay Vohra, the learned Senior Counsel,
alternatively submitted that the amendment in Section 145A
by way of substitution with effect from 01.04.2017 by Finance
Act, 2018 be read down. Section 145-A reads as under:
W.P.(C) Nos.30318/2019, 1529/2024, 17949/2020, 17828/2020, 17964/2020,
17972/2020, 28444/2021, 29846/2021, 30448/2021, 30354/2019, 30340/2019,
30373/2019, 32237/2019
"145A.For the purpose of determining the income
chargeable under the head "Profits and gains of business
or profession",--
(i)the valuation of inventory shall be made at lower of
actual cost or net realisable value computed in
accordance with the income computation and disclosure
standards notified under sub-section (2) of Section 145;
(ii) the valuation of purchase and sale of goods or
services and of inventory shall be adjusted to include the
amount of any tax, duty, cess or fee (by whatever name
called) actually paid or incurred by the assessee to bring
the goods or services to the place of its location and
condition as on the date of valuation;
(iii) the inventory being securities not listed on a
recognised stock exchange, or listed but not quoted on
a recognised stock exchange with regularity from time
to time, shall be valued at actual cost initially recognised
in accordance with the income computation and
disclosure standards notified under sub-section (2) of
Section 145;
(iv) the inventory being securities other than those
referred to in clause (iii), shall be valued at lower of
actual cost or net realisable value in accordance with the
income computation and disclosure standards notified
under sub-section (2) of Section 145.
W.P.(C) Nos.30318/2019, 1529/2024, 17949/2020, 17828/2020, 17964/2020,
17972/2020, 28444/2021, 29846/2021, 30448/2021, 30354/2019, 30340/2019,
30373/2019, 32237/2019
Provided that the inventory being securities held by a
scheduled bank or public financial institution shall be
valued in accordance with the income computation and
disclosure standards notified under sub-section (2) of
Section 145 after taking into account the extant
guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India in this
regard:
Provided further that the comparison of actual cost and
net realisable value of securities shall be made category-
wise."
9.1 If the Court does not agree to declare the provisions
of Section 16 of ICDS (II) as unconstitutional, this Court may
hold that:
(a) the stipulation of Clause 16 of the ICDS (II)
mandating the adoption of FIFO or weighted average cost
method, to the exclusion of LIFO for valuation of
stock/inventory, be held as directory and not mandatory, or
(b) the stipulation under Clause 16 of the ICDS (II)
W.P.(C) Nos.30318/2019, 1529/2024, 17949/2020, 17828/2020, 17964/2020,
17972/2020, 28444/2021, 29846/2021, 30448/2021, 30354/2019, 30340/2019,
30373/2019, 32237/2019
directing the adoption of FIFO or weighted average cost for
valuation of stock/inventory be applied in the very same year,
also to be the valuation of opening stock, i.e., the very same
methodology be maintained for valuation of both opening and
closing of the stock for the very same year.
Department's:
10. Sri. Jose Joseph, the learned Senior Standing
counsel for the Income Tax department has submitted that the
adoption of a uniform method of valuation of closing and
opening stock is based on a long series of consultations with
the experts and the recommendation of the specially
constituted committee of professional which has been taken
note of in the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of
Chamber of Tax Consultants (supra). He further submits that
the Legislature is well within the power to amend the Statute
to provide mandatorily one or more methods of valuation of
W.P.(C) Nos.30318/2019, 1529/2024, 17949/2020, 17828/2020, 17964/2020,
17972/2020, 28444/2021, 29846/2021, 30448/2021, 30354/2019, 30340/2019,
30373/2019, 32237/2019
the stock. There is no legislative incompetence in providing
one or more methods of valuation of the stock by amending
the IT Act. He also submits that a uniform method of valuation
of the stock has been provided by substituting Section 145A of
the IT Act with effect from 01.04.2017, for all the assessees. So,
there is no discrimination by making Clause 16 of the ICDS (II)
mandatory for valuing the stock with effect from 01.04.2017,
under FIFO method. He also submits that there is no
unreasonable classification or manifest arbitrariness in
making it mandatory to value the stock by applying the FIFO
or weighted average cost method.
10.1 He, therefore, submits that, as there is no substance
in the writ petition in challenging the amendment in Section
145A, making it mandatory for adoption of Clause 16 of ICDS
(II) for applying FIFO or weighted average cost method across
the Board for all assessee for valuing the closing and opening
W.P.(C) Nos.30318/2019, 1529/2024, 17949/2020, 17828/2020, 17964/2020,
17972/2020, 28444/2021, 29846/2021, 30448/2021, 30354/2019, 30340/2019,
30373/2019, 32237/2019
stock. He further submits that as there is no substance in the
submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the un-
equals are being treated equally. There is no question of any
class of persons, inasmuch as with effect from 01.04.2017, for
maintaining uniformity in valuing the closing and opening
stock has to be by applying the FIFO method, which has been
made mandatory for all assessees.
10.2 It is further submitted that an assessee cannot
contend that he will not follow the law and will adopt a
particular method of valuation of the stock, despite the change
in law by the competent legislature, i.e., Parliament. If under
the IT Act, only one method has been adopted, that too after a
wide range of consultation from all the stakeholders to value
the closing and opening stock by applying the FIFO method
under Clause 16 of ICDS (II), there is no discrimination or
arbitrariness. He therefore submits that the present writ
W.P.(C) Nos.30318/2019, 1529/2024, 17949/2020, 17828/2020, 17964/2020,
17972/2020, 28444/2021, 29846/2021, 30448/2021, 30354/2019, 30340/2019,
30373/2019, 32237/2019
petition is liable to be dismissed.
11. I have considered the submissions advanced on
both sides.
Discussion:
12. It is no matter of doubt that an assessee is entitled
to adopt one or the other method of computation of its income
if a particular method has not been made mandatory. The
petitioner was applying the LIFO method of accounting as the
standard for valuing the closing and opening stock up to
01.04.2017. Before 01.04.2017, there was no mandatory
provision for adopting one or another method of Accounting
Standards. The Statute also did not mandate only one method
of valuing the closing and opening stock. The petitioners were
free to adopt any one of the Accounting Standards as notified
by the ICAI. The Parliament, after a wide range of consultation
from all stakeholders and based on the recommendations of
W.P.(C) Nos.30318/2019, 1529/2024, 17949/2020, 17828/2020, 17964/2020,
17972/2020, 28444/2021, 29846/2021, 30448/2021, 30354/2019, 30340/2019,
30373/2019, 32237/2019
the Committee to maintain uniformity in accounting the
income and valuing the stock, has made Clause 16 of ICDS (II)
mandatory for the adoption of FIFO or weighted average cost
method. This mandatory provision applies to all assessees,
and, therefore, I do not find any substance in the submission
of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that making
Clause 16 of ICDS (II) mandatory for adopting FIFO or weighted
average cost method as the only method valuing the
stock/inventory suffers from any vires of unreasonable
classification or manifest arbitrariness as violative of Article
14 of the Constitution of India.
13. In Dr Subramanian Swamy (Supra), it was held that,
if there is excessive delegation of powers, without guidelines
to the Executive, such legislature will suffer a violation of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
13.1 Paragraph 49 of the said judgment which is relevant
W.P.(C) Nos.30318/2019, 1529/2024, 17949/2020, 17828/2020, 17964/2020,
17972/2020, 28444/2021, 29846/2021, 30448/2021, 30354/2019, 30340/2019,
30373/2019, 32237/2019
is extracted hereunder:
"49. Where there is a challenge to the constitutional validity
of a law enacted by the legislature, the Court must keep in
view that there is always a presumption of constitutionality
of an enactment, and a clear transgression of constitutional
principles must be shown. The fundamental nature and
importance of the legislative process needs to be recognized
by the Court and due regard and deference must be accorded
to the legislative process. Where the legislation is sought to
be challenged as being unconstitutional and violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution, the Court must remind itself to
the principles relating to the applicability of Article 14 in
relation to invalidation of legislation The two dimensions of
Article 14 in its application to legislation and rendering
legislation invalid is now well recognized and these are (i)
discrimination, based on an impermissible or invalid
classification and (ii) excessive delegation of powers;
conferment of uncanalised and unguided powers on the
executive, whether in the form of delegated legislation or by
way of conferment of authority to pass administrative orders
if such conferment is without any guidance, control or
checks, it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The
Court also needs to be mindful that a legislation does not
become unconstitutional merely because there is another
W.P.(C) Nos.30318/2019, 1529/2024, 17949/2020, 17828/2020, 17964/2020,
17972/2020, 28444/2021, 29846/2021, 30448/2021, 30354/2019, 30340/2019,
30373/2019, 32237/2019
view or because another method may be considered to be as
good or even more effective, like any issue of social, or even
economic policy. It is well settled that the courts do not
substitute their views on what the policy is."
13.2 In State of Maharashtra (supra), the Supreme Court
has laid down the well-established principles for testing any
legislation before it can be declared as ultra vires. Paragraph
106 of the said judgment is extracted hereunder:
"106. Before we embark upon the exercise to determine as to
whether the impugned Amendment Act is ultra vires Articles
14 and 19(1)(g), it would be apposite to notice the well-
established principles for testing any legislation before it can
be declared as ultra vires. It is not necessary for us to make a
complete survey of the judgments in which the various tests
have been formulated and reaffirmed. We may, however,
make a reference to the judgment of this Court in Budhan
Choudhry v. State of Bihar [AIR 1955 SC 191; 1955 Cri LJ 374],
wherein a Constitution Bench of seven Judges of this Court
explained the true meaning and scope of Article 14 as follows:
(AIR p. 193, para 5)"
W.P.(C) Nos.30318/2019, 1529/2024, 17949/2020, 17828/2020, 17964/2020,
17972/2020, 28444/2021, 29846/2021, 30448/2021, 30354/2019, 30340/2019,
30373/2019, 32237/2019
5. It is now well established that while Article 14 forbids class
legislation, it does not forbid reasonable classification for the
purposes of legislation. In order, however, to pass the test of
permissible classification two conditions must be fulfilled,
namely, (i) that the classification must be founded on an
intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things
that are grouped together from others left out of the group,
and (ii) that that differentia must have a rational relation to
the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question.
The classification may be founded on different bases; namely,
geographical, or according to objects or occupations or the
like. What is necessary is that there must be a nexus between
the basis of classification and the object of the Act under
consideration. It is also well established by the decisions of
this Court that Article 14 condemns discrimination not only
by a substantive law but also by a law of procedure.
13.3 In Mohd. Shujat Ali (supra), the Supreme Court had
defined the reasonable classification as under:
".................... A reasonable classification is one which
includes all persons or things similarly situated with
respect to the purpose of the law. There should be no
W.P.(C) Nos.30318/2019, 1529/2024, 17949/2020, 17828/2020, 17964/2020,
17972/2020, 28444/2021, 29846/2021, 30448/2021, 30354/2019, 30340/2019,
30373/2019, 32237/2019
discrimination between one person or thing and another, if
as regards the subject-matter of the legislation their
position is substantially the same. This is sometimes
epigrammatically described by saying that what the
constitutional code of equality and equal opportunity
requires is that among equals, the law should be equal and
that like should be treated alike. But the basic principle
underlying the doctrine is that the Legislature should have
the right to classify and impose special burdens upon or
grant special benefits to persons or things grouped
together under the classification, so long as the
classification is of persons or things similarly situated with
respect to the purpose of the legislation, so that all persons
or things similarly situated are treated alike by
law................."
(emphasis supplied)
13.4 In Shayara Bano vs. Union of India (supra), the
Supreme Court has held that if Legislature suffers from
manifest arbitrariness, the same can be held to be invalid
legislation under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Paragraph 101 of the said judgment is extracted hereunder:-
W.P.(C) Nos.30318/2019, 1529/2024, 17949/2020, 17828/2020, 17964/2020,
17972/2020, 28444/2021, 29846/2021, 30448/2021, 30354/2019, 30340/2019,
30373/2019, 32237/2019
"101.The test of manifest arbitrariness, therefore, as laid
down in the aforesaid judgments would apply to invalidate
legislation as well as subordinate legislation under Article 14.
Manifest arbitrariness, therefore, must be something done
by the legislature capriciously, irrationally and/or without
adequate determining principle. Also, when something is
done which is excessive and disproportionate, such
legislation would be manifestly arbitrary. We are, therefore,
of the view that arbitrariness in the sense of manifest
arbitrariness as pointed out by us above would apply to
negate legislation as well under Article 14."
14. In the present case, the petitioners had been
following the LIFO method to value its closing and opening
stock and the same had been accepted by the Revenue up to
01.04.2017. It is also a well-settled law that the closing and
opening stock are to be valued by applying the same method
of valuation. In the case of Ramswarup Bengalimal (supra), K.G
Khosla (supra), Doom Dooma India Ltd (supra), & CIT vs.
Mahavir Aluminum Ltd (supra) held that opening and closing
W.P.(C) Nos.30318/2019, 1529/2024, 17949/2020, 17828/2020, 17964/2020,
17972/2020, 28444/2021, 29846/2021, 30448/2021, 30354/2019, 30340/2019,
30373/2019, 32237/2019
of stock of a year have to be necessarily valued on the same
basis. The opening stock cannot be valued in a manner
different from the valuation of closing stock.
15. In Chainrup Sampathram vs. CIT15, P.M Mohd.
Meerakhan vs. CIT16, Sanjeev Woolen Mills vs. CIT17, ALA farm
vs. CIT18, it has been held that the valuation of closing and
unsold stock is not the source of income in the hands of the
assessee. However, by applying the method of FIFO with effect
from 01.04.2017, the income of the petitioner has increased to
the tune of Rs.51.07 Crores without any real income.
16. It is relevant to note that the substitution of Section
145A with retrospective effect from 01.04.2017 by the Finance
Act, 2018 is to give relief to those assessees who had adopted
the FIFO to value their stock in the Assessment Year 2017-18
(1953) 24 ITR 481 (SC)
(1969) 2 SCC 25
(2005) 13 SCC 307
(1991) 2 SCC 558
W.P.(C) Nos.30318/2019, 1529/2024, 17949/2020, 17828/2020, 17964/2020,
17972/2020, 28444/2021, 29846/2021, 30448/2021, 30354/2019, 30340/2019,
30373/2019, 32237/2019
and to save their returns from being declared as
incorrect/invalid. This retrospective operation is with said
purpose and objective. However, if an assessee did not apply
the FIFO to value its opening and closing stock as it was not
mandatory, requiring such an assesses to apply FIFO to value
their stocks for the Assessment Year 2017-18 would result in
an uncalled-for outcome. Therefore, I am of the considered
opinion that the retrospective amendment in substituting
Section 145A would not apply to those assessees who had not
applied FIFO for valuing their stock in the Assessment Year
2017-18, as these assesses have been following LIFO
consistently and had filed their returns before the Finance Act
2018 was enacted.
17. Therefore, in the case of the petitioners, the
stipulation under Clause 16 of the ICDS (II) for the adoption of
FIFO or weighted average cost for valuation of the
W.P.(C) Nos.30318/2019, 1529/2024, 17949/2020, 17828/2020, 17964/2020,
17972/2020, 28444/2021, 29846/2021, 30448/2021, 30354/2019, 30340/2019,
30373/2019, 32237/2019
stock/inventory cannot be applied in the Assessment Year
2017-2018 for the valuation of the opening stock, as the
opening and closing stock of the year is to be valued by
applying the same methodology.
Conclusion:
18. Given the aforesaid discussion, all the writ petitions
are partly allowed, and the impugned notices in all the writ
petitions are quashed. The respondents are directed to either
accept the valuation of both opening and closing stock, for the
Assessment Year 2017-2018, based on the LIFO method or
permit the petitioners to value their stocks by applying the
FIFO or weighted average cost method.
All Interlocutory Applications as regards interim matters
stand closed. Sd/-
DINESH KUMAR SINGH
JUDGE
jjj/sj
W.P.(C) Nos.30318/2019, 1529/2024, 17949/2020, 17828/2020, 17964/2020,
17972/2020, 28444/2021, 29846/2021, 30448/2021, 30354/2019, 30340/2019,
30373/2019, 32237/2019
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1529/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION S.O. 3079(E) DATED
29/9/2016 (AS IS RELEVANT TO THE CHALLENGE).
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE WRIT PETITION W.P.(C) NO.
30373/2019 WITHOUT ANNEXURES. PRESENTED ON
DATED:11/11/2019
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN WRIT
PETITION(C) NO.30373/2019 DATED 12.11.2019
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN WRIT
PETITION(C) NO. 17964 /2020 DATED 25/03/2021
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN WRIT
PETITION(C) NO. 28444 OF 2021 DATED 10/12/2021
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE RETURN FOR THE ASSESSMENT
YEAR 2022-2023 DATED 30.09.2022
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE AUDIT REPORT IN FORM 3CD.
DATED:NIL
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 1.6.2023 ISSUED
UNDER SECTION 144B FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR
2022-23.
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION
142(1) DATED 4.10.2023
Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER TO THE ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX
DEPARTMENT DATED 18.10.2023.
Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER TO THE ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX
W.P.(C) Nos.30318/2019, 1529/2024, 17949/2020, 17828/2020, 17964/2020,
17972/2020, 28444/2021, 29846/2021, 30448/2021, 30354/2019, 30340/2019,
30373/2019, 32237/2019
DEPARTMENT DATED 7.11.2023.
Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION
142(1) DATED 1.1.2024.
Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S LETTER DATED
06.01.2024
Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED 10.1.2024
FROM THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
W.P.(C) Nos.30318/2019, 1529/2024, 17949/2020, 17828/2020, 17964/2020,
17972/2020, 28444/2021, 29846/2021, 30448/2021, 30354/2019, 30340/2019,
30373/2019, 32237/2019
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17949/2020
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION S.O. 3079(E) DATED
29/9/2016 AS IS RELEVANT TO THE CHALLENGE.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN WRIT PETITION
C 30340/2019.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RETURN FOR THE ASSESSMENT
YEAR 2018-19.
EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE AUDIT REPORT INFORM 3CD.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 22/09/2019.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 24/12/2019.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 11/02/2020.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 24/02/2020.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO. 2637/2014
AND CONNECTED CASES.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WRIT APPEAL 557 OF
2015 AND CONNECTED CASES DATED 13.11.2015.
W.P.(C) Nos.30318/2019, 1529/2024, 17949/2020, 17828/2020, 17964/2020,
17972/2020, 28444/2021, 29846/2021, 30448/2021, 30354/2019, 30340/2019,
30373/2019, 32237/2019
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17828/2020
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION SO 3079(E) DATED
29.9.2016 (AS IS RELEVANT TO THE CHALLENGE).
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RETURN FOR THE ASSESSMENT
YEAR 2017-18
EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE AUDIT REPORT IN FORM 3CD FOR THE
ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RETURN FOR THE ASSESSMENT
YEAR 2018-19
EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF THE AUDIT REPORT IN FORM 3CD FOR THE
ASSESSMENT YEAR 2018-19
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 22.9.2019
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 24.12.2019
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 11.2.2020
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 24.2.2020
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO NO
2637/2014 AND CONNECTED CASES
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WRIT APPEAL 557 OF
2015 AND CONNECTED CASES DATED 13.11.2015
W.P.(C) Nos.30318/2019, 1529/2024, 17949/2020, 17828/2020, 17964/2020,
17972/2020, 28444/2021, 29846/2021, 30448/2021, 30354/2019, 30340/2019,
30373/2019, 32237/2019
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17964/2020
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION S.O. 3079.(E) DATED
29.09.2016 (AS IS RELEVANT TO THE CHALLENGE)
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN WRIT PETITION
(C) 30373/2019.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RETURN FOR THE ASSESSMENT
YEAR 2018-19.
EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE AUDIT REPORT IN FORM 3CD
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 23.09.2019.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 24.12.2019.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 11.02.2020.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 24.02.2020.
W.P.(C) Nos.30318/2019, 1529/2024, 17949/2020, 17828/2020, 17964/2020,
17972/2020, 28444/2021, 29846/2021, 30448/2021, 30354/2019, 30340/2019,
30373/2019, 32237/2019
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17972/2020
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION S.O. 3079(E) DATED
29/9/2016 AS IS RELEVANT TO THE CHALLENGE.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN WRIT PETITION
C 30318/2019 DATED 12.11.2019.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RETURN FOR THE ASSESSMENT
YEAR 2018-19.
EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE AUDIT REPORT IN FORM 3CD DATED
29.9.2018.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 22/09/2019.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 24/12/2019.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 11/02/2020.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 24/02/2020.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO. 2637/2014
AND CONNECTED CASED DATED 10.11.14.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WRIT APPEAL 557 OF
2015 AND CONNECTED CASES DATED 13.11.2015.
W.P.(C) Nos.30318/2019, 1529/2024, 17949/2020, 17828/2020, 17964/2020,
17972/2020, 28444/2021, 29846/2021, 30448/2021, 30354/2019, 30340/2019,
30373/2019, 32237/2019
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 28444/2021
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION S.O 3079(E) DATED
29-09-2016 (AS IS RELEVANT TO THE CHALLENGE)
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN WRIT PETITION
(C) 30373/2019 DATED 12-11-2019
Exhibit P2A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN WRIT PETITION
@ 17964/2020 DATED 25-03-2021
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RETURN FOR THE ASSESSMENT
YEAR 2020-21 DATED 20-11-2020
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF FORM 3CD DATED 20-11-2020
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION
143(2) DATED 29-06-2021
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATE 05-07-2021
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION
142(1) DATE 08-11-2021
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 30-11-2021
W.P.(C) Nos.30318/2019, 1529/2024, 17949/2020, 17828/2020, 17964/2020,
17972/2020, 28444/2021, 29846/2021, 30448/2021, 30354/2019, 30340/2019,
30373/2019, 32237/2019
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 29846/2021
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION S.O.3079(E) DATED
29.9.2016 (AS IS RELEVANT TO THE CHALLENGE)
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN WRIT PETITION
(C) NO.30318/2019 DATED 12/11/2019
Exhibit P2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN WRIT PETITION
(C) NO.17972/2020 DATED 26/8/2020
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RETURN FOR THE ASSESSMENT
YEAR 2020-21 DATED 9/12/2020
Exhibit P4 COPY OF FORM 3CD DATED 3/12/2020
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION
143(2) DATED 29/6/2021
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATE 5/7/2021
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION
142(1) DATE 16/11/2021
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 16/12/2021
W.P.(C) Nos.30318/2019, 1529/2024, 17949/2020, 17828/2020, 17964/2020,
17972/2020, 28444/2021, 29846/2021, 30448/2021, 30354/2019, 30340/2019,
30373/2019, 32237/2019
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 30448/2021
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION SO 3079(E) DATED
29.09.2016 (AS IS RELEVANT TO THE CHALLENGE).
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN WRIT PETITION
(C) NO.17828/2020 DATED 26.08.2020.
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN WRIT PETITION
(C) NO.28444/2021 DATED 10.12.2021.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RETURN FOR THE ASSESSMENT
YEAR 2020-21 DATED 09.12.2020.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF FORM 3CD DATED 04.12.2020.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION
143(2) DATED 29.06.2021.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATE 05.07.2021.
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION
142(1) DATED 04.12.2021.
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 20.12.2021.
W.P.(C) Nos.30318/2019, 1529/2024, 17949/2020, 17828/2020, 17964/2020,
17972/2020, 28444/2021, 29846/2021, 30448/2021, 30354/2019, 30340/2019,
30373/2019, 32237/2019
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 30354/2019
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION S.O.3079(E) DATED
29/9/2016 (AS IT RELEVANT TO THE CHALLENGE).
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RETURN FOR THE ASSESSMENT
YEAR 2017-18 DATED 28/10/2017.
EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF FORM 3CD REPORT.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 30/07/2019.
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 4/10/2019.
EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION REJECTING THE
REPLY DATED 11/10/2019.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO.2637/2014
DATED 10/11/2014.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WRIT APPEAL 557 OF
2015 AND CONNECTED CASES DATED 13/11/2015.`
W.P.(C) Nos.30318/2019, 1529/2024, 17949/2020, 17828/2020, 17964/2020,
17972/2020, 28444/2021, 29846/2021, 30448/2021, 30354/2019, 30340/2019,
30373/2019, 32237/2019
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 30340/2019
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION S.O.3079(E) DATED
29.09.2016 (AS IS RELEVANT TO THE CHALLENGE).
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RETURN FOR THE ASSESSMENT
YEAR 2017-18 DATED 30.10.2017.
EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF FORM 3CD REPORT.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 30.07.2019.
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 04.10.2019.
EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION REJECTING THE
REPLY DATED 11.10.2019.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C)NO.2637/2014
DATED 10.11.2014.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WRIT APPEAL 557 OF
2015 AND CONNECTED CASES DATED 13.11.2015.
W.P.(C) Nos.30318/2019, 1529/2024, 17949/2020, 17828/2020, 17964/2020,
17972/2020, 28444/2021, 29846/2021, 30448/2021, 30354/2019, 30340/2019,
30373/2019, 32237/2019
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 30373/2019
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION S.O.3079(E) DATED
29.9.2016 (AS IS RELEVANT TO THE CHALLENGE).
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RETURN FOR THE ASSESSMENT
YEAR 2017-18 DATED 28.10.2017.
EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF FORM 3CD REPORT.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 30.7.2019.
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 4.10.2019.
EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION REJECTING THE
REPLY DATED 11.10.2019.
W.P.(C) Nos.30318/2019, 1529/2024, 17949/2020, 17828/2020, 17964/2020,
17972/2020, 28444/2021, 29846/2021, 30448/2021, 30354/2019, 30340/2019,
30373/2019, 32237/2019
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 32237/2019
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION SO 3079(E) DATED
29.09.2016(AS IN RELEVANT TO THE CHALLENGE)
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RETURN FOR THE ASSESSMENT
YEAR 2017-18 DATED 30.10.2017
EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF FORM 3 CD REPORT
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 04.11.2019
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 20.11.2019
EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION REJECTING THE
REPLY DATED 21.11.2019
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN
WP(C)NO.30318/2019 DATED 12.11.2019
W.P.(C) Nos.30318/2019, 1529/2024, 17949/2020, 17828/2020, 17964/2020,
17972/2020, 28444/2021, 29846/2021, 30448/2021, 30354/2019, 30340/2019,
30373/2019, 32237/2019
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 30318/2019
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION S.O. 3079(E) DATED
29/09/2016 (AS IS RELEVANT TO THE CHALLENGE)
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RETURN FOR THE ASSESSMENT
YEAR 2017-18 DATED 27-10-2017.
EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE FORM 3CD REPORT.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 30-07-2019.
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 04-10-2019.
EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION REJECTING THE
REPLY DATED 11-10-2019.
EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.
2637/2014 DATED 10-11-2014.
EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WRIT APPEAL 557
OF 2015 DATED 13-11-2015.
