High Court dismisses challenge to Income-tax Act sections, petitioner can seek relief

The High Court of Madras dismissed the writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of sections 234A, 234B, and 234C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as withdrawn and not pressed. The court clarified that this dismissal did not signify an opinion on the validity of the provisions. The petitioner was granted liberty to seek relief from the concerned tax authorities in accordance with previous directions. The first writ petition seeking to quash the order related to the levy of interest under the mentioned sections was disposed of with the petitioner having the opportunity to present their claim to the authorities for consideration and appropriate orders.

---

---

Issues:
- Writ petition for quashing order related to levy of interest under sections 234A to 234C of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
- Writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of sections 234A, 234B, and 234C introduced by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987.

Analysis:
The judgment by the High Court of Madras involved two writ petitions that were considered together as they pertained to the same subject matter but sought different reliefs. In the first writ petition, the petitioner requested a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash an order dated 23-11-1992 concerning the levy of interest under sections 234A to 234C of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The petitioner sought relief from being charged any interest under these sections. The second writ petition challenged the constitutional validity of sections 234A, 234B, and 234C introduced by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, as being illegal, unconstitutional, ultra vires, and unenforceable concerning the petitioner.

In a previous order by the same judge, certain directions were issued for similar cases, allowing petitioners to approach the competent authorities for relief towards interest under the Act. The judge granted liberty to move the concerned Income-tax Officer, assessing authority, or the Central Board of Direct Taxes for appropriate relief and orders based on the grievance and relief sought. The judge dismissed writ petitions challenging the constitutional validity of sections 234A to C as withdrawn and not pressed, clarifying that the dismissal did not express any opinion on the validity of the provisions themselves.

The counsels representing both sides agreed to dispose of the current writ petitions in line with the previous directions. Consequently, the writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of the Act was dismissed as withdrawn and not pressed, emphasizing that the dismissal did not reflect an opinion on the validity of the provisions. Regarding the first writ petition, the petitioner was granted liberty to approach the concerned Income-tax Officer, assessing authority, or CBDT for relief based on the grievance and relief sought. The authority was directed to consider the petitioner's claim in light of previous directions and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law after providing notice and opportunity for representation. The first writ petition was finally disposed of with no costs incurred.

---