SC Explains When Shares Received After Company Amalgamation are Taxable as Business Income  ||  SC: Excavators, Dumpers Etc Used Within Factories aren’t Motor Vehicles For Road Tax Purposes  ||  SC: Complaints Alleging Fraud under Companies Act Can Be Filed Only By SFIO, Not By Private Parties  ||  SC: Preventive Detention Cannot Override Bail and Requires Proof of a Threat to Public Order  ||  Supreme Court: Multiple Complaints Are Valid For Dishonour of Several Cheques in One Transaction  ||  SC: Bail Should Not be Refused Mechanically Nor Granted Based on Irrelevant Considerations  ||  Gujarat HC: Motor Accident Compensation Doesn’t Cover Medical Expenses Paid by Charity  ||  HP High Court: Panchayati Raj Elections Cannot Be Postponed Beyond Five-Year Term  ||  Ker HC: Victim Cannot File Second Appeal Seeking Special Leave Against Acquittal Under S.419(4) BNSS  ||  Delhi HC: Right to Higher or Professional Education is Fundamental and Cannot be Curtailed Lightly    

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 2026 - All Rights Reserved