Court Invalidates Subsequent Form-3, Orders Restoration of Original Form-5 Without Re-filing The Court found that the subsequent Form-3 issued by the revenue, treating the case as a search case, was invalid as the petitioner's case had already ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Court Invalidates Subsequent Form-3, Orders Restoration of Original Form-5 Without Re-filing
The Court found that the subsequent Form-3 issued by the revenue, treating the case as a search case, was invalid as the petitioner's case had already been settled with an original Form-5. The Court directed the restoration of the original Form-5 without requiring the petitioner to file Form-4 again. Emphasizing the need for technology to not burden taxpayers, the Court instructed the involvement of DGIT (Systems) to address the technological hindrance in restoring the original Form-5. The next hearing was set for 27th August, 2021, with orders to be uploaded online and shared with counsel via email.
Issues: Challenge to subsequent Form-3 issued by revenue after full settlement in Form-5 Validity of subsequent Form-3 treating case as a search case Petitioner's challenge to subsequent Form-3 treating case as a non-search case Requirement of filing Form-4 for restoration of original Form-5 Technology hindering restoration of original Form-5
Analysis: The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging a subsequent Form-3 issued by the revenue after a full settlement in Form-5. The subsequent Form-3 dated 21st January, 2021 was issued on the basis that the petitioner's case was a search case. The Court had earlier stayed this subsequent Form-3. Subsequently, the revenue issued a new Form-3 treating the case once again as a search case, followed by a re-revised Form-3 treating it as a non-search case. The petitioner filed a second writ petition challenging these subsequent Form-3s, arguing that the authority was functus officio after the initial Form-5 had been issued on 28th December, 2020. The re-revised Form-3 dated 12th April, 2021 was found to be identical to the initial Form-3 dated 23rd December, 2020, putting the petitioner in the same position as in December 2020.
During the hearing, the counsel for the revenue insisted that the petitioner should file Form-4 again for the issuance of a fresh certificate in Form-5. However, it was acknowledged that the new Form-5 would be a photocopy of the original Form-5 issued in December 2020. The Court opined that the petitioner should not be asked to furnish Form-4 again and that the original Form-5 should be restored without delay. The revenue's counsel argued that the portal did not allow the restoration of the previous Form-5 without filing Form-4 again.
The Court expressed that technology should not be a tool for harassing assesses with unnecessary filings. It emphasized that software and computerized systems should comply with lawful directions and not create additional burdens for taxpayers. The Court directed the DGIT (Systems) to participate in the proceedings through online audio-video link to discuss modifying the software for resolving the issue. The next hearing was scheduled for 27th August, 2021, with instructions to upload the order on the website and forward copies to the counsel via email.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
