Madras HC disposes Petitions Challenging Constitutionality of Section 115 WA(2) and 115 WB(2)& (1) of Income Tax Act as Provisions Removed from Statute [Read Order]
Provisions were ultra vires of Article 14, 19(1)(g), and 265 of the Constitution, and beyond the legislative competence of Parliament as far as they were concerned, says petitioners
![Madras HC disposes Petitions Challenging Constitutionality of Section 115 WA(2) and 115 WB(2)& (1) of Income Tax Act as Provisions Removed from Statute [Read Order]](https://www.taxscan.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Madras-High-Court-Income-tax-Income-tax-news-Writ-Petitions-taxscan.jpg "Madras HC disposes Petitions Challenging Constitutionality of Section 115 WA(2) and 115 WB(2)& (1) of Income Tax Act as Provisions Removed from Statute [Read Order]")
The Madras High Court has disposed of writ petitions filed by different companies challenging the constitutionality of the Income Tax provisions Section 115 WA(2) and 115 WB(2)& (1) as the provisions were removed from the statute. According to the petitioners these sections, introduced by the Finance Act, 2005, were ultra vires of Article 14, 19(1)(g), and 265 of the Constitution,...
The Madras High Court has disposed of writ petitions filed by different companies challenging the constitutionality of the Income Tax provisions Section 115 WA(2) and 115 WB(2)& (1) as the provisions were removed from the statute.
According to the petitioners these sections, introduced by the Finance Act, 2005, were ultra vires of Article 14, 19(1)(g), and 265 of the Constitution, and beyond the legislative competence of Parliament as far as they were concerned.
Ms. G. Pramila, counsel for the petitioners, presented the case before the court, while no representation was made on behalf of the respondents including Union of India and CBDT.
The petitioners submitted that the provisions assailed in the writ petitions no longer find place in the statute book and the same are removed by the Finance Act 2/2009 with effect from 01.04.2010.
As the government has removed those provisions, then there is no point in dealing with cases.
Thus, the bench of Chief Justice Sanjay V. Gangapurwala and Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy held that “No consequential relief is claimed in the writ petitions. As the writ petitions are now only academic, we need not decide the prayer made in the writ petitions.” Consequently, the petitions were disposed of.
To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
Salem Textiles Ltd. vs Union of India , 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 609