Petition for Mandamus to Extend Tax Deductions for Construction Projects Dismissed; Insufficient Pleadings Noted.

The HC dismissed the petition seeking a writ of Mandamus to extend deductions under section 80-IBA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the completion period for construction projects under section 90-IBA(2)(b). The court found insufficient pleadings to prove discrimination against real estate developers, as claimed under Article 14. Consequently, it declined to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 to compel legislative action, emphasizing that courts cannot direct the legislature to legislate in a specific manner. No costs were awarded.

---

---

Issues:
1. Extension of date for availing deductions under section 80-IBA of the Income Tax Act, 1961
2. Extension of time period for completion of construction projects under section 90-IBA(2) (b) of the Act
3. Allegation of discrimination against Real Estate Developers
4. Fundamental rights violation under Article 14 of the Constitution of India
5. Jurisdiction of the Court to issue a writ of Mandamus

Extension of Deductions and Completion Time:
The petitioner sought a writ of Mandamus to extend the date for availing deductions under section 80-IBA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and to extend the time period for completion of construction projects from five years to seven years under section 90-IBA(2) (b) of the Act. The petitioner argued that the Union of India had extended similar timelines in other provisions but failed to do so in the case of section 80-IBA, leading to discrimination against Real Estate Developers.

Allegation of Discrimination:
The petitioner claimed that the failure to extend timelines under section 80-IBA beyond 31.03.2022, while granting extensions in other provisions, amounted to discrimination. The petitioner argued that this discriminatory treatment violated the fundamental rights of its members, particularly those enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner highlighted the impact of the Covid-19 Pandemic on the real estate industry and cited advisories issued by regulatory authorities for deadline extensions due to force majeure conditions.

Legal Analysis and Jurisdiction of the Court:
The court analyzed the petitioner's claim of discrimination and the requirement to demonstrate that its members and those covered under section 80-IAC of the Act were similarly situated. The court referred to relevant judgments emphasizing the need for specific, clear, and unambiguous allegations to prove discrimination under Article 14. Additionally, the court discussed the powers of the courts to issue a writ of Mandamus to direct a legislature to enact a particular law, highlighting that no court can compel the legislature to legislate in a specific manner.

Court Decision and Conclusion:
Based on the analysis, the court found the petition lacking in sufficient pleadings to establish discrimination as claimed by the petitioner. The court concluded that it would not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Mandamus to the Respondent or the legislature for the reliefs sought by the petitioner. Therefore, the court dismissed the petition, stating that no writ of Mandamus would lie to direct the legislature, and no costs were awarded in the matter.

This comprehensive summary provides a detailed analysis of the judgment, covering all the issues involved and the court's decision on each aspect of the case.

---