Surendra Vikram Singh Rathore, J. - (1.) CASE called. None present on behalf of the petitioners.
(2.) HEARD Sri I.B. Singh Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and the learned Standing counsel for the State and perused the record. By means of the above petitions the provisions of the Income Tax Act, whereby the income tax was to be paid on the house rent allowances, was under challenge. The petitioner had claimed refund of the tax already deducted on the basis of the difference of house rent recovery.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the N.T.P.C. submits that the said provision of Section 17 of the Income Tax Act, were considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Arun Kumar and others v. Union of India and others, 2007 (1) S.C.C. 732. The same provision was under challenge in these writ petitions. While considering the aforesaid provision the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under: In several cases, the courts have invoked and applied the doctrine of "reading down" and upheld the constitutional validity of the Act. But it is equally well settled that if the provision of law is explicitly clear, language is unambiguous and interpretation leaves no room for more than one construction, it has to be read as it is. In that case, the provision of law has to be tested on the touchstone of the relevant provisions of law or of the Constitution and it is not open to a court to invoke the doctrine of "reading down" with a view to save the statute from declaring it ultra vires by carrying it to the point of "perverting the purposes of the statute".;