 is not linked with Aadhaar or Aadhaar Number is not quoted.){kind=link}
The Gujarat High Court has recently allowed the appeal filed by Bandish Saurabh Soparkar seeking a declaration that he would not be in default in any proceedings only for the reason that the permanent account number (PAN) is not linked with Aadhaar or Aadhaar Number is not quoted.
A Single Judge bench of Justice Harsha Devani said, “in the opinion of this court, with a view to balance the equities, the applicant needs to be protected by directing that his PAN shall not be declared inoperative and the applicant may not be subjected to the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 139AA of the Act till the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Roger Mathew V South Indian Bank Ltd. is delivered and available.”
Counsel for the Applicant S. N. Soparkar submitted that applicant has a prima facie case for not linking his permanent account number (PAN) with Aadhaar in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in Justice K. S. Puttaswamy which has been referred to larger bench. He said applicant will be facing absolutely irreparable injury should the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 139AA of the Act be made operative against him inasmuch as the applicant would not be able to transact as mentioned in rule 114B of the Income Tax Rule and also not upload the return of Income. Such restrictions, therefore, will not only cause grave injury to the applicant but the applicant will also face financial and criminal consequences for the same. It was submitted that applicant has filed his return of income regularly and the only issue is that by virtue of the proviso to section 139AA of the Act, his pan would become inoperative. If PAN is suspended he would not be able to operate his bank account.
On the other hand, Senior Advocate M. R. Bhatt submitted that the judgment of the Supreme Court in Justice K. S. Puttaswamy has taken into account all the facets of section 139AA of the Act. That reference to the larger bench has been made only on the question of Money Bill. He said once the provision of section 139AA of the Act have been upheld, the High Court ought not to stay the operation thereof. He said granting any stay or relief to the applicant would tantamount to granting stay against the operation of the Supreme Court decision. Moreover, granting any relief to the applicant would have wide repercussions in the entire country.
In rejoinder, counsel for the applicant submitted that in view of the reference to the larger bench, it is not correct to say that the issue is final and conclusive inasmuch as the issue is at large before the Supreme Court. It was urged all the applicant is asking that he be excused from the evil effects of the provisions of section 139AA of the Act.
Court noted, “it’s pointed out by the counsel for the applicant, on the question as to whether the Aadhaar Act was rightly introduced as a “Money Bill”, the Supreme Court vide its judgment & order made in case of Rojer Mathew V. South Indian Bank Ltd has referred the issue for consideration by a larger bench. The validity of the Aadhaar Act therefore, has not attained finality.”
“In the event, the larger Bench hold that the Aadhaar Act could not have been introduced as a Money Bill, Section 139AA of the Act would be rendered redundant. Therefore, if the applicant is directed to abide by the provisions of section 139AA of the Act, in the event the challenge to the Aadhaar Act being introduced as a Money Bill were to succeed, it would not be possible to turn the clock back as the applicant would be required to provide all the necessary information for obtaining an Aadhaar card and the claim of privacy of the applicant would be lost for all time to come. Under the circumstances court is of the view that to balance the equities the applicant needs to be protected by directing that his PAN shall not be declared inoperative and he may not be subjected to the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 139AA of the Act till the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rojer Mathew V South Indian Bank Ltd. is delivered and available”, said Court.
Read the judgement here
–India Legal Bureau