Court upholds petition under Indian Constitution despite SICA repeal, clarifies tax concessions discretion.

The court held that the petition was maintainable under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India despite the repeal of SICA. It found that the BIFR's order modifying the Scheme was legally valid but did not obligate the Income Tax Department to grant further concessions. The court emphasized the department's discretion in granting concessions and set aside the order requiring additional concessions, disposing of the petition accordingly.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the petition after the repeal of SICA.
2. Validity of the BIFR's order dated 26.02.2013 and its implications.
3. Whether the Income Tax Department is obligated to grant further concessions.

Summary:

1. Maintainability of the Petition:
The first issue addressed was whether the petition is maintainable after the repeal of SICA. The court rejected the contention that an appeal would lie to the NCLAT, as the relevant provisos have been held ultra vires by the NCLAT and upheld by the Supreme Court. The court concluded that the petition is maintainable under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, as the repeal of SICA does not preclude judicial review of BIFR's orders.

2. Validity of the BIFR's Order and Scheme Duration:
The court examined whether the BIFR's order dated 26.02.2013, which modified the Scheme, was legally valid. It was determined that the Scheme had a specified term and measures that were time-bound. The court found merit in the contention that without extending or modifying the Scheme, no additional concessions could be included. The court noted that the BIFR could not impose obligations on the Income Tax Department without its consent, which was not granted.

3. Obligation to Grant Further Concessions:
The court addressed whether the BIFR's order necessarily required the Income Tax Department to grant further concessions. It concluded that the order only required the department to consider the grant of further concessions, not to necessarily grant them. The court emphasized that the Income Tax Department retained the discretion to grant or deny the additional concessions, and the company's interpretation that the department was obligated to grant them was incorrect.

Conclusion:
The court set aside the impugned order, stating that the Income Tax Department is not required to grant any further concessions contrary to the IT Act. The petition was disposed of accordingly.

---