Govt. Cannot Be Bound to Issue Notification for Capital Gain Exemption Under Section 54EE | HC

  • Blog|News|Income Tax|
  • 3 Min Read
  • By Taxmann
  • |
  • Last Updated on 19 December, 2023

Capital Gain Exemption u/s 54EE

Case Details: Getwell medicare vs. Union of India - [2023] 157 taxmann.com 365 (Kerala)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

    • Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.
    • A. KumarP.J. AnilkumarSmt G. MiniP.S. Sree PrasadJob AbrahamAjay V. Anand, Advs. for the Petitioner.
    • K.K. Sethukumar, CGC for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

Petitioner, a partnership firm engaged in wholesale dealerships in pharmaceutical products, transferred its business under the slump sale method on a ‘going concern basis’ for a lump sum consideration and computed capital gains under Section 50B of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

The petitioner had approached the High Court for a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Union of India to notify long-term specified assets for availing capital gains exemption under Section 54EE with appropriate extension of time period under Section 54EE and Explanation 2 therein or any such appropriate manner known to law.

Section 54EE allows capital gains exemption up to a limit of Rs. 50 lakhs provided the assessee invests the capital gain proceeds in the long-term specified assets notified under Section 54EE for a minimum period of 3 years. Further, Explanation 2(b) of Section 54EE defines a long-term specified asset’ as units issued before the 1st day of April 2019 of such funds as notified by the Central Government on this behalf.

Contending that the doctrine of promissory estoppel binds the Central Government to notify such fund, the petitioner filed a writ petition to the Kerala High Court.

High Court Held

The High Court held that it was neither a case of discrimination nor the petitioner would have a right under Articles 14 or 19 (1)(g) of the Constitution of India, which has been violated by non-issuance of notification under section 54EE of the IT Act. Therefore, no writ of mandamus can be issued to the Central Government to issue a notification under Section 54EE of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

With respect to the issue of promissory estoppel, the Court held that the principle of promissory estoppel is based on equity, and it requires a valid promise based on which the promisee had changed its position. Meanwhile, the principle of legitimate expectation is rooted in fundamental ideas like reasonableness, fairness, and non-arbitrariness. It is well settled that the Government is competent to resile from a promise even if there is no manifest public interest involved, provided no one is put in any adverse situation which cannot be rectified. The fiscal decisions are in the prudence and realm of the executive. The reasons why the Government did not issue a notification are within the domain of the executive’s discretion. The Court is not empowered to go behind the reasons for not issuing the notification under Section 54EE.

The petitioner would know that without notification having been issued for a long-term specified asset or fund for investment, the petitioner could not claim exemption from tax on his capital gain arising from the transfer of his long-term capital asset. Here, it is not a case that the petitioner had made an investment in a specified long term asset as notified by the Government, and thereafter the Government withdrew the said notification. Therefore, the petitioner’s argument that the Central Government should be held bound by its promise to notify the specified long-term asset/fund is not meritorious.

Thus, non-issuance of notification cannot be said to be arbitrary, unfair or unreasonable.

Disclaimer: The content/information published on the website is only for general information of the user and shall not be construed as legal advice. While the Taxmann has exercised reasonable efforts to ensure the veracity of information/content published, Taxmann shall be under no liability in any manner whatsoever for incorrect information, if any.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Everything on Tax and Corporate Laws of India

To subscribe to our weekly newsletter please log in/register on Taxmann.com

Author: Taxmann

Taxmann Publications has a dedicated in-house Research & Editorial Team. This team consists of a team of Chartered Accountants, Company Secretaries, and Lawyers. This team works under the guidance and supervision of editor-in-chief Mr Rakesh Bhargava.

The Research and Editorial Team is responsible for developing reliable and accurate content for the readers. The team follows the six-sigma approach to achieve the benchmark of zero error in its publications and research platforms. The team ensures that the following publication guidelines are thoroughly followed while developing the content:

  • The statutory material is obtained only from the authorized and reliable sources
  • All the latest developments in the judicial and legislative fields are covered
  • Prepare the analytical write-ups on current, controversial, and important issues to help the readers to understand the concept and its implications
  • Every content published by Taxmann is complete, accurate and lucid
  • All evidence-based statements are supported with proper reference to Section, Circular No., Notification No. or citations
  • The golden rules of grammar, style and consistency are thoroughly followed
  • Font and size that's easy to read and remain consistent across all imprint and digital publications are applied