Reassessment notices after substitution must follow the new procedure; time-extension notifications cannot preserve the old regime.

After 1 April 2021, reassessment notices had to comply with the substituted reassessment procedure, and notices issued later could not rely on the superseded pre-existing regime. The court further treated the explanations inserted in the time-extension notifications as ultra vires to the extent they attempted to preserve the earlier procedure, because delegated power could extend time limits but could not override the new statutory scheme. On that basis, the notices under section 148 issued on the old footing were quashed and the reassessment proceedings were held unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether reassessment notices issued after 31 March 2021 were required to comply with the substituted reassessment procedure introduced with effect from 1 April 2021. (ii) Whether the explanations inserted in the notifications extending time were ultra vires and whether the impugned notices under section 148 were liable to be quashed.

Issue (i): Whether reassessment notices issued after 31 March 2021 were required to comply with the substituted reassessment procedure introduced with effect from 1 April 2021.

Analysis: The substituted provisions governing reassessment came into force on 1 April 2021. Notices issued after 31 March 2021 could not be sustained by referring to the old procedure, because the legislative change altered the manner in which reassessment had to be initiated. The extended time for taking action did not preserve the superseded procedure beyond the date of substitution.

Conclusion: The reassessment notices issued after 31 March 2021 were required to conform to the substituted provisions and could not proceed under the old procedure.

Issue (ii): Whether the explanations inserted in the notifications extending time were ultra vires and whether the impugned notices under section 148 were liable to be quashed.

Analysis: The executive power under the relaxation framework could extend time limits, but it could not defer or override the operation of the substituted reassessment provisions. The notifications were therefore beyond the delegated power to the extent they sought to continue the earlier procedure, and the notices founded on that basis could not survive. The challenge to the old procedure and the saving argument based on prior law were rejected in view of the substituted statutory scheme.

Conclusion: The explanations in the notifications were declared ultra vires and bad in law, and the impugned reassessment notices under section 148 were quashed.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions succeeded because reassessment proceedings initiated after 31 March 2021 without following the substituted statutory procedure were unsustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: Once a substituted reassessment regime has come into force, notices issued thereafter must comply with the new procedure, and delegated notifications cannot extend the life of the superseded procedure or override the parent statute.

---