Allahabad High Court
Digvijay Narain Singh vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 19 November, 2003
Equivalent citations: (2004)188CTR(ALL)132, [2004]266ITR417(ALL)
Author: M. Katju
Bench: M. Katju, Umeshwar Pandey
JUDGMENT M. Katju, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Department.
2. The petitioner has challenged the constitutional validity of the proviso to Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which permits the application under Section 256(1) to be filed within further period not exceeding 30 days than that prescribed in the main part of Section 256(1), i.e., 60 days. Thus the proviso permits the filing of a reference application within 90 days in appropriate cases.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there may be cases where the reference could not be filed even within 90 days. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to Sections 249(3), 253(5) and other provisions of the Income-tax Act where there is no maximum period prescribed for condoning the delay by the authorities.
4. Be that as it may, the proviso to Section 256(1) prescribes the maximum period of 30 days for which the period of limitation for filing a reference application can be extended. It is not for this court to question the wisdom of Parliament in this connection. We do not see any violation of Article 14 or other provisions of the Constitution by the proviso in question.
5. It may be mentioned that in rare and very exceptional cases if a reference application could not for some reason be filed within 90 days and the party can show that he had sufficient cause for the delay then the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution can give relief because it is well settled that alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to a writ petition. We are not inclined to declare the proviso ultra vires.
6. In fact, if we declare the impugned proviso as ultra vires the petitioner will get only 60 days for filing the application instead of 90 days. Hence, we do not see how by quashing the impugned proviso the petitioner will be benefited.
The writ petition is dismissed.