Karnataka HC: Can’t Provide Free Bus Service to Enable Voters to Reach Polling Booth  ||  Gau. HC Declares Levy of Court Fee at the rate of 7% for Grant of Probate as Unconstitutional  ||  Cal. HC: Can’t Say Retracted Statement to be Involuntary Without Being Examined by Court  ||  Supreme Court: Union Directed to Deport 17 Foreigners in Assam’s Transit Camps  ||  Recommendations Made by Gujarat HC for Promotions of Judicial Officers Upheld by Supreme Court  ||  SC: Can’t Charge Friends/Relative for Offence of Bigamy by Mere Presence in Second Marriage  ||  ICAI Rule Limiting Number of Tax Audits by Chartered Accountants Every Year Upheld by Supreme Court  ||  Supreme Court Explains 7 Sub-Rights that Must be Protected by State During Land Acquisition  ||  SC: Accused Can’t be Arrested by ED After Special Court has Taken Cognizance of PMLA Complaint  ||  SC: Employees Filing Writ Petitions Against Air India After its Privatisation, Not Maintainable    

CREDAI-BANM Vs. Union of India - (High Court of Bombay) (23 Dec 2022)

Court cannot direct a legislature to enact a particular law

MANU/MH/4521/2022

Direct Taxation

By present Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, the Petitioner seeks issuance of a writ of Mandamus to direct the Respondent-Union of India to extend the date of availing deductions by assessees under Section 80-IBA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (IT Act) from 31st March, 2022 to 31st March, 2023, by taking necessary executive legislative steps as may be required. The Petitioner further seeks issuance of a writ of Mandamus to direct the Respondent to extend the time period for completion of construction projects from five years to seven year under Section 90-IBA(2) (b) of the IT Act.

The Petitioner's claim to be discriminated against, on the basis that its members are similarly situated to persons covered under the provisions of section 80-IAC of the Act. No court can direct a legislature to enact a particular law. Similarly, when an executive authority exercises a legislative power by way of subordinate legislation pursuant to the delegated authority of a legislature, such executive authority cannot be asked to enact a law which he has been empowered to do under the delegated legislative authority.

The present petition is grossly lacking in sufficient pleadings as would be required from making out a case of discrimination as claimed by the Petitioner. The petition lacks all material particulars required to be stated in the pleadings, to draw some parity or similarity between members of the Petitioner and persons stated to be covered by the provisions of section 80-IAC of the Act.

Further, on applying the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Supreme Court Employees' Welfare vs. Union of India, this Court would not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Mandamus to the Respondent and much less to the legislature, directing the legislation in the nature sought by the Petitioner in the reliefs claimed in the petition. No writ of Mandamus would lie to direct the legislature. Petition dismissed.

Tags :   LEGISLATIVE STEPS  TIME  EXTENSION

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved