We use Google Cloud Translation Services. Google requires we provide the following disclaimer relating to use of this service:
This service may contain translations powered by Google. Google disclaims all warranties related to the translations, expressed or implied, including any warranties of accuracy, reliability, and any implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, and noninfringement.
The Patan High Court has issued an order not to immediately implement the decision of the Internal Revenue Department last October regarding the extension of the deadline for filing the income statement determined on the basis of transactions.
On Monday, the single bench of Judge Hemant Rawal ordered the Prime Minister's Office, the Ministry of Finance, the Revenue Investigation Department and other agencies not to implement the notice issued by the Internal Revenue Department last October to file income statements.
However, it does not mean that the taxpayer cannot extend the deadline. The order of the court is not to implement the decision to extend the deadline based on the transactions issued by the Internal Revenue Department last October.
Section 96 of the Income Tax Act stipulates that every person must file the income statement within three months of the end of the income year at the place designated by the income tax department. In section 98 of the same Act, there is a provision that the department can extend the deadline for a maximum of three months at the request of the person who has to file the income statement in accordance with section 96. According to this provision, the court order did not stop the extension of the deadline at the request of the taxpayer. Relying on the same section of this Act, the Internal Revenue Department had decided to extend the deadline in the middle of January, saying that the computer system would be overburdened.
According to the decision of last October 4, the Internal Revenue Department issued a new notification for income statement filing on the 7th of the same month. According to which, there is no extension of the deadline for filing the income statement in relation to single firms with annual turnover up to 1 crore and entities with zero turnover. However, the deadline will be extended only until the end of November in relation to entities and other taxpayers whose annual turnover is up to 250 million. Similarly, the department had issued a notification that the deadline will be extended only till 20th of January in relation to taxpayers who have an annual turnover of more than 25 crores. According to the same notification, a writ was filed in the court against the decision to extend the deadline.
Advocate Srijana Adhikari filed a writ in Patan High Court seeking an interim order against the department's decision to extend the deadline and the notification issued based on it. The court has refused to grant an immediate interim order as per the demand of the writ. The court has ordered to set the hearing of this case on January 1 to discuss whether or not to issue an interim order.
What happened in this? Why should the writ petition not be issued? If there is any basis, reason or proof that the order should not be issued, also, within 15 days from the date of expiry of the rakhi notice, submit a written reply through the High Public Prosecutor's Office Patan. 6, 'A short-term interim order has been issued in the name of the opposition not to immediately implement the notification dated 081 October 7 published by the opposition Internal Revenue Department until the date fixed for the discussion.'
