Delhi High Court is hearing a petition by Sr. Adv. Abhishek Manu Singhvi against the Central Board of Direct Taxes - filed in response to a penalty on Singhvi of about Rs. 57 crores, imposed for undisclosed income of almost Rs. 91 crores.

Singhvi is making submissions on merits of the case.
Delhi High Court has asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to consider not taking any precipitative action against Singhvi.
Singhvi: Government has taken a lot of action to reduce tax related litigation. Singhvi refers to a scheme meant to reduce direct tax litigation taken out by the government.
Singhvi: I'm jumping out of sequence to refer to a CBDT Circular which repeats the same objects which were laid down in the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act.
Singhvi: "Specified date" in the Act means Jan 1, 2020, which means they were adding some element of retroactivity as well in the legislation (up to 3 months).
Singhvi: The amazing part is that this Act requires entry only on 2 conditions: one, that there should be a pendency of writ, SLP or appeal, two, that it should be pending on a certain date. There is no other affirmative condition!
Singhvi: The provisions of this Act shall not apply in respect of tax arrears for a search case (search cases only above Rs. 5 crores).

Del HC: Does it include pendency before ITSC?
Singhvi: No, it doesn't include matters pending before ITSC.
Singhvi: One case I'm arguing is of search, within the Rs. 5 crore limit. The other case is of ITSC.
Singhvi: There is no model of the Act saying this nature of proceeding is included and this is not included.
Del HC: What is the amount being discussed here? Is it the amount before the ITSC or the one mentioned in this writ?
Singhvi: It is the amount in this writ. It does not exceed Rs. 5 crores.
Sr. Adv. Arvind Datar: The question is that when an Act has excluded certain things from its scheme, can a Circular subsequently add those things?
Court directs for the matter to be heard on Jan 12.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta: I request for the matter to be held on Jan 13, as it doesn't concern a petition or petitioner, but would apply to the entire country.
Singhvi: My friend is trying to show that there would be an avalanche of matters but that is more imaginary than real.
Court: That is besides the point here for now.
SG Mehta: I'm not showing a red flag here, just telling that I'm not arguing against a particular petitioner here.

Singhvi: I am in agreement that whatever is decided would be the law.
The court has posted the matter for further hearing on Jan 12.

More from Live Law

More from India

In his letters describing the India Mission, Carey has given us an insight into how the society functioned then, of how the minds of the people worked and what methods the missionaries used to approach and brainwash the common people.


It is entirely possible that,Carey in his arrogance of being the white man and hence more civilized,his inability to under the Hindu scriptures and his natural disdain for the learned community coupled with his inherent hatred for the idolaters may have exaggerated the incidents.

In fact, considering the venom with which he has spoken about Hinduism and it's practices, it's likely that he has exaggerated these incidents. But it cannot be denied that these incidents did happen even if they may not have been on scale at which Carey has described.

One of his journal entry mentions a debate which happened in a temple in front of around 200 people. Carey describes having debated with two learned men and goes on to say when both learned men failed to answer his questions, he went on to preach the gospel to the assembled crowd


In a letter dated 30th June,1795 he goes on to gleefully narate how Hindus were unaware of their own scriptures and how an supposed expert named a grammar book when he was questioned as which scripture said that the Murti is God.

You May Also Like

Trump is gonna let the Mueller investigation end all on it's own. It's obvious. All the hysteria of the past 2 weeks about his supposed impending firing of Mueller was a distraction. He was never going to fire Mueller and he's not going to


Mueller's officially end his investigation all on his own and he's gonna say he found no evidence of Trump campaign/Russian collusion during the 2016 election.

Democrats & DNC Media are going to LITERALLY have nothing coherent to say in response to that.

Mueller's team was 100% partisan.

That's why it's brilliant. NOBODY will be able to claim this team of partisan Democrats didn't go the EXTRA 20 MILES looking for ANY evidence they could find of Trump campaign/Russian collusion during the 2016 election

They looked high.

They looked low.

They looked underneath every rock, behind every tree, into every bush.

And they found...NOTHING.

Those saying Mueller will file obstruction charges against Trump: laughable.

What documents did Trump tell the Mueller team it couldn't have? What witnesses were withheld and never interviewed?

THERE WEREN'T ANY.

Mueller got full 100% cooperation as the record will show.