Full Text
Translation output
* IS THE HIGH COURT OF DiELHl ATTiVEW PEUH
•• •
M/S.L.M;;SAGAREXPQIVr5; petitioner
• ^ ^.V ; Thirough: ^ "Noiie-; ^ •
^ ./Versus . • ••
UOI &, ANOTHER' ' , i . j ...;, Respbhderits'
/ ;r , <Thi:bugh: •Mr^Aniira^^ ^^y / 'V
" •; /•' Mf/Zdheb Hossain, Senior Standing ; , - ' , . . . ;• > ; ,,,Coiiins^r with Anand, '
V;; • ., , nuijior,Standing'Gourisel> : ' .
,1, '• r /
M/S L.M:,APPARELS. : V;, ;.;;. Petitioner.;. : '
• ' • / Through: None ' • • ' j , '
•• •
M/S.L.M;;SAGAREXPQIVr5; petitioner
• ^ ^.V ; Thirough: ^ "Noiie-; ^ •
^ ./Versus . • ••
UOI &, ANOTHER' ' , i . j ...;, Respbhderits'
/ ;r , <Thi:bugh: •Mr^Aniira^^ ^^y / 'V
" •; /•' Mf/Zdheb Hossain, Senior Standing ; , - ' , . . . ;• > ; ,,,Coiiins^r with Anand, '
V;; • ., , nuijior,Standing'Gourisel> : ' .
,1, '• r /
M/S L.M:,APPARELS. : V;, ;.;;. Petitioner.;. : '
• ' • / Through: None ' • • ' j , '
VERSUS
; ,UOi &,ANOTHER/, f \ • / 'V . \ v-^ Respondents: ^' '
' - Through: MrJAnurag Ahruwalia,-CGSC / v'r
: ' , "v , ,/ ' ' ^ Hossain,'Senior Standing . v.
: Gbunsd ,with'DeejDak •Anand,' , ' • , V - . Jlinior Standing Counsel ' . • , , "
. GbRAM:':,. f HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR
•'••• ''V. OR.DER'^'- • r.- t'Tvi^w-ATvivA'-;,--- ' .X".-'-
% 05.07.2018
' • Learned counsel for tjHie petitioners isno - ., / ^ ; l' i-
, • and ~4 of the Taxation L^aws (^endment Act),'2005) ,amending^ ^
. . . ' • ,V: Section 80HHC (3)-of-the income Tax Act, 1961 with r^^^ . X
' • V •
- i' ' ;
2018:DHC:8729-DB n
.effect from 01.04.199,2.'
I , The petitioners are entitled to partly succeed in view of and in
• terms of the
' - Through: MrJAnurag Ahruwalia,-CGSC / v'r
: ' , "v , ,/ ' ' ^ Hossain,'Senior Standing . v.
: Gbunsd ,with'DeejDak •Anand,' , ' • , V - . Jlinior Standing Counsel ' . • , , "
. GbRAM:':,. f HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR
•'••• ''V. OR.DER'^'- • r.- t'Tvi^w-ATvivA'-;,--- ' .X".-'-
% 05.07.2018
' • Learned counsel for tjHie petitioners isno - ., / ^ ; l' i-
, • and ~4 of the Taxation L^aws (^endment Act),'2005) ,amending^ ^
. . . ' • ,V: Section 80HHC (3)-of-the income Tax Act, 1961 with r^^^ . X
' • V •
- i' ' ;
2018:DHC:8729-DB n
.effect from 01.04.199,2.'
I , The petitioners are entitled to partly succeed in view of and in
• terms of the
JUDGMENT
of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of
A , ' •
Income Tax-5 and Am. vs. Avani Exports andAnr., (2016) 16 SCC
741, substantially affirming the decision of Gujarat High Court in
Avani Exports v. CIT (2012) 348ITR 391. Impugned amendment to the extent they impose conditions and had limited and restricted benefit to exporters haying a turnover of more than Rs.l Ocrpres per annum have been quashed and declared ultra vires. Retrospeptive amendment would not be detrimental to any ofthe assessees.
The Supreme Court decision'also refers to the statement made, on behalf ofthe Union of India by the Attorney General of India'and then had substituted the direction given by the Gujarat High Court with the following direction:- •
"Having'seen the twin conditions and since Section 80-
HHC benefit is not available after 14-2005, we are
' satisfied that cases of exporters haying a turnover below - and those above Rs.lO crores should be treated similarly.
This order is in substitution ofthe judgment in appeal."' -
^ , The ratio and directions given by the Supreme Colirt-in ylva/i/ i . Exports (supra) will equally apply to the present writ petitions, which ,are
1 i • t • ^ , accordingly allowed interms of the said decision. There would be no> order as to costs.
JULY 05, 2018
[I
SANJIY KHANNA, J
CHAlsfc^SfiEKHAR,J
2018:DHC:8729-DB
A , ' •
Income Tax-5 and Am. vs. Avani Exports andAnr., (2016) 16 SCC
741, substantially affirming the decision of Gujarat High Court in
Avani Exports v. CIT (2012) 348ITR 391. Impugned amendment to the extent they impose conditions and had limited and restricted benefit to exporters haying a turnover of more than Rs.l Ocrpres per annum have been quashed and declared ultra vires. Retrospeptive amendment would not be detrimental to any ofthe assessees.
The Supreme Court decision'also refers to the statement made, on behalf ofthe Union of India by the Attorney General of India'and then had substituted the direction given by the Gujarat High Court with the following direction:- •
"Having'seen the twin conditions and since Section 80-
HHC benefit is not available after 14-2005, we are
' satisfied that cases of exporters haying a turnover below - and those above Rs.lO crores should be treated similarly.
This order is in substitution ofthe judgment in appeal."' -
^ , The ratio and directions given by the Supreme Colirt-in ylva/i/ i . Exports (supra) will equally apply to the present writ petitions, which ,are
1 i • t • ^ , accordingly allowed interms of the said decision. There would be no> order as to costs.
JULY 05, 2018
[I
SANJIY KHANNA, J
CHAlsfc^SfiEKHAR,J
2018:DHC:8729-DB