Calling the Situation Grim, the Supreme Court Takes Suo Motu Cognizance of Delays in NCLT Approvals  ||  Supreme Court: Admission of a Claim by a Resolution Professional is Not Debt Acknowledgment  ||  Supreme Court: Public Figures Must Exercise Caution as Their Words Have Consequences in Society  ||  SC: State Must Act as a Model Employer, Criticising the Union For Not Regularising ISRO Workers  ||  J&K&L High Court: Minor Minerals Have Major Environmental Impacts and Must be Regulated  ||  Del HC: Unexplained Money Received by Public Servant is Not Bribery Without Proof of Official Favour  ||  Del HC: There is No Absolute Bar on Granting Co-Convicts Parole/Furlough Together in Suitable Cases  ||  Bom HC: LARR Authority Can Examine Limitation Issues in Land Acquisition References under 2013 Act  ||  MP HC: Long-Serving Employees Cannot Be Denied Regularisation by Retrospective Statutory Amendments  ||  J&K&L HC: Routine Challenges to Lok Adalat Awards Defeat Their Purpose of Quick Dispute Resolution    

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