Commissioner of Income-tax, Chennai v. Shasun Chemicals and Drugs Ltd., Now Known as Shasun Pharmaceuticals Ltd
[Citation -2020-LL-0207-85]
| Citation | 2020-LL-0207-85 |
|---|---|
| Appellant Name | Commissioner of Income-tax, Chennai |
| Respondent Name | Shasun Chemicals and Drugs Ltd., Now Known as Shasun Pharmaceuticals Ltd. |
| Court | HIGH COURT OF MADRAS |
| Relevant Act | Income-tax |
| Date of Order | 07/02/2020 |
| Judgment | View Judgment |
| Keyword Tags | retrospective amendment • retrospective operation • claim of deduction • export turnover • ultra vires |
| Bot Summary: | In Order in TC Nos.26 to 28 of 2013 dated 07.02.2020 COMMON JUDGMENT Both the learned counsel at Bar submits that the controversy in the present appeals is covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax -Vs- Avani Exports 2015 58 taxmann.com 100 decided on 30.03.2015. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the claim of deduction made by the Assessee under Section 80HHC is not hit by the amendment made in the Section through Taxation Laws Act, 2005 and the Assessee is eligible for deduction as claimed by it 2. In Order in TC Nos.26 to 28 of 2013 dated 07.02.2020 that the impugned amendment is violative for its retrospective operation in order to overcome the decision of the Tribunal, and at the same time, for depriving the benefit earlier granted to a class of the assessees whose assessments were still pending although such benefit will be available to the assessees whose assessments have already been concluded. 27.We, accordingly, quash the impugned amendment only to this extent that the operation of the said section could be given effect from the date of amendment and not in respect of the earlier assessment years of the assessees whose export turnover is above Rs.10 Crore. Against the High Court judgment, these SLPs are filed by the Union of India Mr.Mukul Rohtagi, learned Attorney General for India submits that once the prayer made was to severe the aforesaid two conditions as onerous and ultra vires, the High Court should have couched the reliefs in terms of that prayer only, instead of stating that the operation of the Section would be given effect to prospectively only and these conditions would not operate retrospectively. With the aforesaid clarification, all these SLPs including that of the assessees filed against the judgment of the M.P.High Court are disposed of. Accordingly, we dispose of the present appeals in the same terms and answer the substantial question of law in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue. |