- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Madhya Pradesh High Court Stays CBDT Notifications The Court granted interim protection to the Petitioner by directing no coercive action would be taken against him The Madhya Pradesh High Court stayed the notifications of the Central Board of Direct Taxes dated 31 March 2021 and 27 April 2021. A Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, comprising Chief Justice...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
Madhya Pradesh High Court Stays CBDT Notifications
The Court granted interim protection to the Petitioner by directing no coercive action would be taken against him
The Madhya Pradesh High Court stayed the notifications of the Central Board of Direct Taxes dated 31 March 2021 and 27 April 2021.
A Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, comprising Chief Justice Mohammad Rafiq and Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla, dealt with the matter titled Vijay Kumar Devnani v Income Tax Officer & Ors.
The Petitioner through his petition had challenged the constitutionality of certain provisions of the notifications issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, which are listed below:
• CBDT Notification No.20/2021 dated 31 March 2021.
• CBDT Notification No.38/2021 dated 27 April 2021.
The Petitioner contended that similar petitions challenging the constitutionality of the aforesaid notifications had been placed before various High Courts, wherein those Courts had entertained such similar petitions and granted interim protection to the Petitioners in it.
The Respondent – Authorities did not deny the existence of these similar petitions being granted interim protection but instead prayed for time to submit their reply.
The Court took into consideration the similar writ petitions filed before the various High Courts in Bombay, Delhi and Calcutta, wherein these Courts had granted interim protection.
Therefore, the Court granted interim protection to the Petitioner by directing no coercive action would be taken against the Petitioner pursuant to the notifications and it further permitted the Respondent – Authorities to file its reply.