Read Time: 05 minutes

Synopsis

A division bench of the Bombay High Court comprising Justice GS Patel and Justice Neela Gokhale on Wednesday granted interim protection to Anil Ambani till further orders in proceedings initiated against him by the tax department under the Black Money Act. 

This came after Advocate Akhileshwar Yadav appearing on behalf of the tax department sought time from the court to file a comprehensive reply after Ambani's amendments in his petition adding three more respondents. 

The court then granted time to the tax department to file its comprehensive affidavit till April 21 and posted the matter for hearing on 28 April 2022. The bench then ordered the interim protection to be continued. 

The high court had granted an interim stay on the tax notices issued to Aabani in September 2022.

During the earlier hearing in March this year, Senior Advocates Rafique Dada, and Prateek Sekseria for Ambani, had stated that the income tax department had issued penalty notices in relation to the show cause notice. Sr. Adv. Dada had challenged the imposition of these penalty notices and requested permission to amend the petition filed by Ambani which was granted by the division bench.

The bench had also protected Ambani from any action until the next hearing date.

“The petitioner will be pressing for ad-interim reliefs as subsequent demands have been made in form of subsequent penalty notice. Leave is granted to amend petition. Authorities to take no further steps pursuant to penalty demand notice till March 17, 2023,” the court had said.

The tax department issued notice to Ambani for evasions of Rs 420 crores tax of the undisclosed fund of Rs 814 crores. The department alleged that there was a wilful and intentional evasion of tax and non-disclosure of foreign assets by Ambani.

Notably, Anil Ambani in his plea has also challenged constitutional validity of the Black Money Act.

During the earlier hearings, Senior Advocate Rafiq Dada had argued that the Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 came in the year 2015, and the alleged transactions were from the assessment year of 2006 and 2010-2011. Therefore, while relying on Article 20 of the Constitution of India, he had argued that there could not be a retrospective operation of law. He had also submitted that similar issues were pending before different high courts including the Bombay High Court.

Case Title: Anil Dhirajlal Ambani versus Union of India & Ors