LAWS(BOM)-2022-3-330

AMBAR TIMBLO Vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Decided On March 29, 2022
Ambar Timblo Appellant
V/S
JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By instituting this writ petition dtd. 28/3/2022, the petitioner mounts a challenge to the constitutional validity of several provisions of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 (hereafter "the Act", for short). Incidentally, the trigger for this writ petition appears to be a show-cause notice dtd. 12/3/2022 issued by the respondent no.1 in relation to proceedings under sec. 10 of the 2015 Act, calling upon the petitioner to explain why the amount of Rs.109,42,35,012.00 should not be added as income of the petitioner under the relevant provisions of the Act. The petitioner was given time till 17/3/2022 to furnish his explanation.

(2.) It is not in dispute that responding to the aforesaid show-cause notice, the petitioner has filed a representation dated March 23, 2022, wherein he has objected to the jurisdiction of the respondent no.1 to issue the impugned notice on multiple grounds.

(3.) Although Mr. Dada, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has sought to impress upon us that the impugned showcause notice is one issued wholly without jurisdiction and the Court ought to interfere even before the respondent no.1 passes an order on the representation of the petitioner, we need not either refer to the objections raised by the petitioner in his representation in any great detail or deal with the submissions advanced by Mr. Dada, having regard to the order that we propose to pass on this writ petition while disposing of the same based on the request that the petitioner made to the respondent no.1 vide the penultimate paragraph of such representation. Therein, the petitioner requested the respondent no.1 to allow him a hearing on the preliminary objections as raised questioning the jurisdiction of the respondent no.1 to issue the impugned notice and to dispose of the same by passing a speaking order so as to allow the petitioner reasonable time to challenge such order before the appropriate forum including the High Court.