Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Against Income Tax Reassessment, Directs Petitioner to File Appeal Adultery Requires Proof of Sexual Relations, Mere Emotional Attachment is No Ground to Deny Maintenance: MP High Court Co-Sharer Cannot Sell Specific Land Without Partition: Punjab & Haryana High Court Declares Mutation Illegal When Best Evidence is Withheld, an Adverse Inference Must Be Drawn Against the Prosecution: Supreme Court Slams State for Procedural Lapses When the State Itself Did Not Challenge the Earlier Judgment, Third Parties Cannot Litigate on Its Behalf: Supreme Court When Parties Have Agreed to a Fixed Compensation, Courts Cannot Rewrite the Contract to Award Additional Damages: Supreme Court When an Employer Deprives an Employee of Work Through Illegal Action, They Must Face the Consequences: Supreme Court Condemns State Transport Corporation’s “Fraud on Court” Possession Handed Over Before the Sale Deed Makes the Agreement a Conveyance: Supreme Court Rejects Appeal Against Stamp Duty Demand Promissory Estoppel Cannot Override Public Interest: Supreme Court Upholds Goa’s Power Tariff Rebate Withdrawal Tenants Cannot Stall Public Projects Indefinitely; Eviction Under MRTP Act is Legally Valid: Bombay High Court High Court Cannot Reassess Labour Court's Findings Like an Appellate Body: Delhi HC Consensual Physical Relationship Over Four Years Cannot Constitute Rape Under Section 376(2)(n): Karnataka High Court An Injured Witness Comes with a Built-In Guarantee of Truth: Allahabad HC Eviction Cannot Be Ordered Solely Because Evidence is Unrebutted: Kerala HC Encroachment Claims Do Not Justify Forcible Dispossession: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Injunction, Dismisses Appeal Limitation | An Educated Litigant Cannot Claim the Same Protection as an Illiterate One: Delhi HC Madras High Court Dismisses PhonePe’s Trademark Infringement Suit Against BundlePe & LatePe Bare Injunction Suit Unsustainable Without Declaration of Title When Ownership is Disputed: Karnataka High Court SARFASI | Exhaustion of Alternative Remedies Essential in SARFAESI Matters: Kerala High Court Once Penalty Period Ends, Employee Must Be Reconsidered for Promotion: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Bombay HC Declares Restrictive E-Filing Rules Unconstitutional; Ensures Taxpayers Can Claim Section 87A Rebate

04 February 2025 7:23 PM

By: Deepak Kumar


Bombay High Court declaring that modifications to the e-filing utility for income tax returns that restrict taxpayers from claiming rebates under Section 87A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were unconstitutional. The Court held that tax collection must adhere strictly to statutory provisions and cannot be restricted by administrative tweaks to e-filing systems. Justice M. S. Sonak and Justice Jitendra Jain emphasized that “no tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law,” reiterating the fundamental principle enshrined in Article 265 of the Constitution of India.

"Access to Justice Cannot Be Denied at the Threshold": Bombay HC on Restrictive E-Filing Utilities

The petition, filed by The Chamber of Tax Consultants, representing 3,800 tax practitioners, and individual taxpayers, challenged the modification to the online utility implemented on July 5, 2024, which prevented taxpayers from claiming the Section 87A rebate. The rebate, available to individual taxpayers earning below a specified threshold, had been restricted when taxes were computed under Section 115BAC (the new tax regime).

The petitioners argued that this restriction violated Articles 265 and 300A of the Constitution, which prohibit arbitrary deprivation of property and ensure that taxes are collected only with statutory authority. The Court observed:

“Preventing taxpayers from raising a bona fide and debatable claim at the threshold is unconstitutional and contrary to the Income-tax Act’s adjudicatory framework. The e-filing utility is meant to facilitate compliance, not obstruct taxpayers from exercising their statutory rights.”

Tax Filing Utility Cannot Preclude Bona Fide Claims, Rules Bombay HC

Justice Jitendra Jain, writing the judgment, emphasized that the Income-tax Act does not authorize the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) to design e-filing utilities that debar taxpayers from making claims. He noted that Section 87A entitles eligible taxpayers to a rebate, and the question of whether it applies alongside Section 115BAC is debatable and must be adjudicated by quasi-judicial authorities, not resolved unilaterally by the Revenue through administrative measures.

The Court stated: “Restricting claims at the filing stage is akin to denying access to justice. The Act allows taxpayers to self-compute their income and make claims, which can then be verified by assessing officers under Sections 143(1) and 143(3). Administrative tools cannot replace adjudication.”

Constitutional Safeguards in Tax Law Upheld
The judgment strongly relied on Article 265 (“No tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law”) and Article 300A (“No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law”). The Court underscored the sanctity of these provisions, holding that administrative restrictions like tweaking filing utilities to deny claims “transgress constitutional boundaries.”

The Court also referenced Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT (2006) and CIT v. Ranchhoddas Karsondas (1959), emphasizing the importance of allowing taxpayers to make claims in their returns, which can then be reviewed through the assessment and appellate mechanisms under the Act.

“The Revenue cannot resolve statutory ambiguities in its favor by tweaking the e-filing utility. Disputed claims must be adjudicated through due process, not executive fiat,” the Bench remarked.

Relief Granted: E-Filing Utility to Be Modified for Section 87A Claims
The Court issued a writ of mandamus, directing the authorities to immediately modify the e-filing utility to allow claims under Section 87A for the Assessment Year 2024-25 and subsequent years. It clarified that:

Tax authorities must process claims under Section 87A without prejudging their legality.
Decisions on the merits of claims under Section 87A would be referred to the quasi-judicial authorities under the Income-tax Act.
The Court declined to entertain vague and omnibus requests for broader procedural changes but left the door open for similar challenges in future cases.

"Revenue’s Actions Cannot Render Statutory Remedies Redundant"

The Court observed that the modifications to the utility effectively rendered statutory remedies under the Act, such as assessment and appeals, redundant. Addressing the argument by the Additional Solicitor General that Section 87A rebates were incompatible with Section 115BAC, the Bench stated:

“This issue is highly contentious and requires adjudication. At this stage, we cannot conclusively determine whether Section 87A rebates can be claimed alongside taxes computed under Chapter XII provisions, including Section 115BAC. However, the Revenue’s administrative interpretation cannot be imposed unilaterally by denying taxpayers the opportunity to even raise the claim.”

The Bombay High Court’s judgment underscores the principle that tax governance must align with the Rule of Law and respect statutory frameworks. The decision affirms taxpayers' rights to raise bona fide claims, even if contentious, without arbitrary restrictions imposed through administrative measures. The ruling serves as a reminder to tax authorities that technology, while indispensable for efficiency, cannot override constitutional guarantees or deny access to justice.

Date of Decision: January 24, 2025

Similar News