Case Law Details

Case Name : Vijay Kumar Devnani Vs ITO and Anr. (Madhya Pradesh High Court)
Appeal Number : WP No. 15243 of 2021
Date of Judgement/Order : 18/08/2021
Related Assessment Year :

Vijay Kumar Devnani Vs ITO and Anr. (Madhya Pradesh High Court)

Madhya Pradesh High Court Stays Section 148 notice issued after 31st March 2021 as per the section 148 provisions which were effective only till 31st March 2021. The petitioner has challenged the validity of the Notification No. 20/2021 dated 31.03.2021 and Notification No. 38/2021 dated 27.04.2021.

Notice message concept written post it on envelope

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT

Heard through Video Conferencing.

Shri Milind Sharma, Advocate and Shri Ravi Kant Patidar, Advocate for the petitioner.

Issue notice.

Mr. Sanjay Lal, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.

Regard being had to the similitude of the questions involved, on the joint request of the parties, the matter is being heard on the question of admission and interim relief.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has challenged the Constitutionality of certain provisions of CBDT Notification No. 20/2021 dated 31.03.2021 and Notification No.38/2021 dated 27.04.2021.

The similar challenge to Constitutionality of these provisions is made before the various High Courts. The High Court of Delhi in WP(C) No. 6442/2021 & CM APPL. 20217/2021 (Mudra Finance Limited vs. Income Tax Officer) Ward 17(1), Delhi & in WP(C) No. 6176/2021 (Mon Mohan Kholi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr.), High Court of Bombay in W. P. No. 1334/2021 (Tata Communications Transformation Services Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 14(1)(2), Mumbai & Others and High Court of Calcutta in WPO No. 244/2021 (Babaria Properties and Investments Private Limited & Anr. vs. Union of India and others) have entertained the similar petitions and granted interim protection to the petitioners therein.

Learned counsel for the respondents prayed for time to file reply but did not dispute the aforesaid contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner that similar petitions have been entertained by other High Courts and interim protection has been granted.

Considering the aforesaid, the respondents are permitted to file reply in the matter.

Till the next date of hearing, no coercive action be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned notifications.

List for analogous hearing alongwith W.P. Nos. 13427/2021, 13483/2021 and 15207/2021.

Download Judgment/Order

More Under Income Tax

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Search Posts by Date

September 2021
M T W T F S S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930