Mumbai: The Bombay High Court issued a notice to the Indian Attorney General in the challenge submitted to the facial income tax appeal scheme launched last year.
HC bench from Judge Kr Shriram and Abhay Ahuja in his order said “Because this problem involves serious legal questions and challenges to the constitutional validity of certain amendments, we intend to finally throw the writing petition itself.” Tax consultant room through his president Ketan Vajani has submitted a petition to challenge the validity of the new scheme.
The senior advisor Arvind flat argues that the whole system really cannot be run.
He handed over that there could be a system where there was no personal hearing.
Private trial is a must in the attractiveness of income tax, he has emphasized hearing before the High Court in August 5.
August for the Direct Tax Council, Advocate Sham Walve said he would also instruct additional lawyers Anil Singh in this issue.
The court has posted it until September 6 for the final hearing and if it did not convince that day, until September 7.
The petition has basically caused a challenge against the notification of September 25 2020 issued under the income tax law, which with it.
Appeal scheme was launched.
The Applicant said it was one of the oldest voluntary non-profit organizations with more than 3800 members including advocates, rented accountants, corporate secretaries, tax practitioners, etc.
The scheme introduced last year provides to review other appeal units.
The petition that sets the scheme says, after the draft orders are prepared by one unit of appeal and if the disputed tax, costs, penalty including additional costs and Cess exceeds the specified limit, must be referred to mandatory to other appointed unit to be reviewed.
In terms of disputed taxes less than the specified limit, the National Inscription Appeal Center (NFAC) will examine the design design based on the risk management strategy specified by the CBDT, through an automatic examination tool and then send it or send it to another appeal unit to be reviewed.
Sometimes orders can be through the lens of three appeal units, said petition.
It adds that the faceless scheme has been done fully with physical hearing if there is an appeal below the 246A part of the Act, before the Commissioner (appeal), although in some cases, the facts of the case may require physical hearing.
“The intentional of the physical trial is completely unreasonable and arbitrary and violates the principles of natural justice.” This breaks article 14 (right for equality) 19 (1) (g) (the right to practice any profession or trade) and 265 (no tax must be collected except with the Legal Authority) the Indian constitution.
The petition said the scheme had “drastic provisions that fully destroyed the independence of the first appeal authority” made them violate article 19 (1) (g).
This scheme also stipulates that mouth hearing through video conferencing will only be given for the wisdom of the commissioner or the Director General, who is responsible for the regional unclean appeal center (RFAC) only at the request of applicant’s assessors, leaving assessors on the internet.
“Poor commissioner or DG”.
The petition said that the entire faceless appeal scheme was “illegal and excessive delegation” because of this by the method of notification issued by the Ministry of CBDT and Uni income, when the power to impose laws on parliament.
In addition, a party with an appeal, the tax department, cannot be entrusted with the work put a scheme as “no human can be a judge in its own cause,” said the petition.
This petition seeks to stop sub-section 6B, 6C and 6D from section 250 of income tax acting as unconstitutional.
Bombay Problems of High Court Notification to AG in a challenge for an appeal scheme without Batu below it
