Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Srinivasan Jayaprakasam, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Madras High Court challenging the constitutional validity of Section 89(1)(a) and Section 89(1)(j) of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme (DTVSV) 2024, read with Query 9 contained in Circular No.12 of 2024 dated 15.10.2024. The challenge was directed at the exclusion of cases where the taxpayer had received orders but the time limit to file an appeal or special leave petition had not expired as on 22 July 2024. The petitioner argued that this exclusion was arbitrary and discriminatory. The respondents, including the Central Board of Direct Taxes and the Union of India, were represented by senior counsel. The court noted that an identical issue was pending before the Delhi High Court. During the proceedings, the matter was resolved on agreeable terms. The revenue authorities gave an undertaking to consider the petitioner's representation in accordance with law. Consequently, the court closed the writ petition as the grievance was redressed, without adjudicating the constitutional validity of the provisions. The court did not issue any further directions and disposed of the connected miscellaneous petitions.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2024 - Exclusion of Cases with Unexpired Appeal Time - Section 89(1)(a) and Section 89(1)(j) of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2024 - The petitioner challenged the constitutional validity of provisions excluding cases where the time to file an appeal had not expired as on 22 July 2024. The court did not decide the constitutional issue as the matter was resolved on agreed terms, with the revenue undertaking to consider the petitioner's representation. (Paras 1-4) B) Tax Law - Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2024 - Definition of 'Appellant' - Section 89(1)(a) of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2024 - The petitioner was aggrieved that the definition of 'appellant' was confined to persons who had already filed an appeal, writ, or SLP, excluding those who had received orders but not yet filed. The court did not rule on this as the petition was closed on a happy note. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether Section 89(1)(a) and Section 89(1)(j) of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2024 read with Query 9 of Circular No.12 of 2024, which exclude cases where the taxpayer received orders but the time limit to file an appeal had not expired as on 22 July 2024, are unconstitutional, illegal, and ultra vires the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The writ petition was closed on a happy note as the grievance of the petitioner was redressed by the revenue's undertaking to consider the representation. No order on the constitutional validity was passed.
Law Points
- Constitutional validity of Section 89(1)(a) and Section 89(1)(j) of Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2024
- Interpretation of 'appellant' under DTVSV Scheme
- Exclusion of cases where appeal time not expired
- Circular No.12 of 2024 Query 9
