[ ] It is submitted that the notifications issued by Revenue aren't ultra vires the specified Act

insofar as they contain the ‘explanation’ clarifying that the pre-amended Sections 148, 149 and
151 of the Act shall govern the issue of notice under Section 148 post 01st April, 2021 under
Section 3(1) of the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions)
Act, 2020

[ ] Effect of Non-Obstante Clause:

Section 3(1) of the 'Relaxation Act' when read with Notification No.20/2021 dated 31st March
2021 and Notification No. 38/2021 dated 27th April 2021  adds the non-obstante clause which
indicates the intention of the legislature. The relevant extract from the Section has been
reproduced herein below:".... and where completion or compliance of such action has not been
made within such time, then, the time-limit for completion or compliance of such action shall,
notwithstanding anything contained in the specified Act" Wherever the legislator have intended
to make a particular provision of the Act as having overriding effect over one or more specific
Sections, the same has been specifically mentioned in the provisions to be given overriding
effect. It is well settled that while dealing with a non obstante clause under which the legislature
wants to give overriding effect to a section, the court must try to find out the extent to which the
legislature had intended to give one provision overriding effect over another provision. Such
intention of the legislature in this behalf is to be gathered from the enacting part of the section as
held in Aswini Kumar Ghose v. Arabinda Bose [AIR 1952 SC 369]

By virtue of introduction of Section 3(1) of the Relaxation Act, 2020, the time limit for taking
action under Section 148 has been extended till 30th June, 2021. The impugned notifications
only provide that as the time limit for issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act has been
extended till 30 June 2021. Furthermore, Section 6 of the General Clauses Act 1897 saves, inter
alia, the rights, privileges, obligations or liabilities acquired/accrued/incurred under any
enactment repealed. As per the Section, unless a different intention appears, there is no embargo
under law for initiation and/ or continuation of proceedings under the repealed enactment. Thus,
it can be translated to the present facts. Even with repeal of old Section 148, since the
proceedings were continuing from past and were pertaining to the application of the old section;
the same could be proceeded as per the repealed enactment

Thus Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 offers assistance to the Revenue as the new
Section 148A demonstrates no intent ‘to destroy’ the old procedure. the Notification did not
travel beyond scope of the I.T. Act and it merely allowed issue of Notice under section 148;
which was within the scope of amended section 148 also. It is not the case that in the amended
Act provisions for re-Assessment notices u/section 148 have been removed, only a new
procedure has been added. The Notifications by means of delegation legislation grant only a
procedural liberty in operation of the old section 148. This is rather a relaxation of the rigorous
Income Tax Act, 1961.

[ ] In likewise situation the principle as laid down in case of A.K. Roy v. Union of India AIR
1982 SC 710, the Supreme Court observed that the power to issue a notification for bringing
into force the provisions of a constitutional amendment is not a constituent power, because it
does not carry with it the power to amend the Constitution in any manner. Likewise in this case,
the delegation to the executive with conferment of the power to the Central Government to
specify the date by way of relaxation of time limit, the main purpose of the Finance Act is not
defeated. Therefore, it would be a conditional legislation. As the legislature has declared the Act
and has given the power to executive to extend the implementation by way of notification. The
legislature has resorted to conditional legislation to give the power to executive, in what
circumstances the law should become operative or when the operation should be extended would
be covered by doctrine of the conditional legislation.

Intent of the legislature can be understood in these circumstances by the notifications by which
the operation of old section 148 of the Income-tax Act was extended, thereby deferment
of section148A was done. The legislative intent in the insertion of section 3(1) was to deal with
an extraordinary event that is, the outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic. It was done by the Ministry of
Finance by way of conditional legislation during the pandemic and lock down and Central
Government cannot be said to have encroached in the domains of parliament.

The income tax Act 1961 is a dynamic enactment that sustains through enactment of the Finance
Act every year. In the present case, it is the Act as amended by the Finance Act 2021, that
confronted the Enabling Act as was pre-existing. The words 'assessment' and 'reassessment'
appearing in the Notifications issued under the Act may be read to be indicating only at
proceedings already commenced prior to 1-4-2021, under the Act (before amendment by the
Finance Act, 2021).

In the first place Section 3(1) of the Relaxation Act does not speak of destroying any provision
of the existing law. It only speaks of saving or protecting certain proceedings from being hit by
the rule of limitation. That provision also does not speak of saving any proceeding from any law
that may be enacted by the Parliament, in future. It is imperative to read and interpret the
provisions of Finance Act, 2021 in view of the fact circumstances arising from the spread of the
pandemic COVID-19. The notification only provides a general relaxation of limitation granted
on account of general hardship existing upon the spread of pandemic COVID -19.

[ ] Interpretation of a non-obstante clause

 Magadh Stock Exchange Association v. Commissioner of Income Tax [2020] 120

taxmann.com 213 (Patna)

As per settled principles of interpretation, anon-obstante clause assumes an overriding character

against any other provision of general application. It declares that within the sphere allotted to it
by the Parliament, it shall not be controlled or overridden by any other provision unless expressly
provided for. In this petition filed under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India,
petitioner lays a challenge to the order of assessment dated 26-12-2008 as affirmed by the
Commissioner of Income Tax

 Small Industries Development Bank of India, Vs Central Board of Direct Taxes (WRIT
PETITION NO.1994 OF 2003)
It is well settled that a provision beginning with non-obstante clause must be enforced and
implemented by giving effect to the provisions of the Act by limiting the provisions of other
laws. A non-obstante clause is generally appended to a Section with a view to give the enacting
part of the Section, in case of conflict, an overriding effect over the provision in the same or
other Act mentioned in the non-obstante clause.

 The Supreme Court in Central Bank of India v. State of Kerala, observed thus:—A non-
obstante clause is generally incorporated in a statute to give overriding effect to a
particular section of the statute as a whole. While interpreting non-obstante clause, the
court is required to find out the extent to which the legislature intended to do so and the
context in which the non-obstante clause is used. This Rule of interpretation has been
applied in several decisions."