Petitioner Thiagarajan Kumararaja sought a direction for permitting him to file his I-T returns for the assessment year 2017-18 either manually or through the appropriate e-filing facility without insisting on quoting the Aadhaar number.
The order comes a week after the same judge - T S Sivagnanam - allowed the woman to file her I-T returns without quoting the Aadhaar number or Aadhaar enrolment number.
The judge had passed the interim order on a plea by Preethi Mohan.
The woman's counsel had move the court relying on a Supreme Court ruling in a case in which it had imposed a partial stay on the operation of Section 139AA of the Income Tax Act, which mandates linkage of Aadhaar with I-T returns.
Citing the supreme court order in the Binoy Viswam vs Union of India case, Justice Sivagnanam, who dismissed the petition yesterday, said the apex court had rejected the contention that since enrolment under the Aadhaar Act is voluntary, it cannot be made compulsory under the Income Tax Act.
The judge said on a reading of the judgement rendered in the case, it would clearly show that the apex court has not stayed the "proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 139AA of the Act" and the partial stay would be applicable only to facilitate the other transactions, which are mentioned in rule 114B, where PAN is to be quoted in all documents.
"Therefore, to state that the partial stay granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court would endure to the benefit of the petitioner even for filing income tax returns is a plea, which is not sustainable and is liable to be rejected," the judge said.
The judge said it has also been held that the purpose behind the Act namely the Income Tax Act, 1961 is entirely different, the purpose being to curb black money, money laundering and tax evasion, among others.
It has been further held that for achieving such objects if parliament chooses to make the provision mandatory under the Act, the competence of parliament cannot be questioned: "on the ground that it is impermissible only because under the Aadhaar Act, the provision is a directory in nature."
The apex court also held that it is the prerogative of Parliament to make a particular provision directory in one statute and mandatory/compulsory in the other and that by itself cannot be a ground to question the competence of the legislature, the judge said.
On October 31, the court had issued an interim direction to the I-T department to permit the woman to file her returns for the assessment year 2017-18 either manually or through appropriate e-filing facility without insisting for Aadhaar number. It also posted the matter to December 18 for the I-T department to file its counter.
You’ve reached your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Exclusive premium stories online
Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app
)