Petitioner No.4, the Union of India as well as the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by State of Sikkim have filed applications seeking correction Neetu Sachdeva
contd..
judgment (B.V. Nagarathna, J) disposing of Writ Petition
(C) NO.59/2013 along with the connected writ petition on
13.01.2023.
It is noted that, in the said writ petition(s), there
was an amended writ petition filed, pursuant to an
application seeking amendment, namely, I.A. No.3A of 2013,
being allowed on 02.08.2013 and the petitioners being
granted leave to file the amended writ petition vide
paragraphs 4(a) to 4(y) of I.A.No.3A of 2013.
Consequently, the amendments were made in the Writ
Petition.
Unfortunately, learned senior counsel appearing for the
writ petitioners and other counsel appearing for the
respective parties in the said matter did not bring to the
notice of this Court the aforesaid substantial amendments
made to the original writ petition(s). It was, infact,
their duty to bring to the notice of this Court the said
amendments, which were twenty five in number. As a result,
the unamended writ petition has been taken into
consideration for the purpose of referring to the pleadings
in the judgment of B.V. Nagarathna,J. Now, Miscellaneous
Applications have been filed seeking correction of the
judgment as if the error has occurred from the side of the
Court by ignoring the fact that the amendments brought to
the original writ petition(s) were not brought to the
notice of this Court!
Contd...
However, having heard learned Solicitor General,
learned Senior Advocates and all other learned counsel
appearing for the respective parties, we think it is just
and proper and in the interest of justice to correct
certain phrases/portions in paragraphs 10(a) and 77 of the
judgment of B.V. Nagarathna,J. by making the following
corrections -
1. In Para 10 (a), the sentence, “Therefore,
there was no difference made out between the
original inhabitants of Sikkim, namely, the
Bhutia-Lepchas and the persons of foreign
origin settled in Sikkim like the Nepalis or
persons of Indian origin who had settled down in
Sikkim generations back” stands deleted.
2. It is further submitted that since this
Court has held that the Explanation to Section
10(26AAA) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is
discriminatory against persons such as the
petitioners, the benefit of the exemption must be
given from the day the said Explanation was
inserted to the said Act. Under the
circumstances, the following expression, at page
115, in para 77 namely, “from the current
financial year i.e., 1st April, 2022 onwards”
stands deleted and there shall be a full stop
after the word “provision”.
Contd..
Shri Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General
appearing on behalf of the Union of India and Shri C. S.
Vaidyanathan, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf
of the State have also requested to make suitable
observations that this Court has not expressed anything on
the validity or interpretation of Article 371-F of the
Constitution of India. No such clarification is required
at all as the validity or interpretation of Article 371-F
of the Constitution of India was not the subject matter
before this Court at all.
It is further clarified that the definition of
Sikkimese and the reference to Sikkim Subjects Regulations,
1961 and Sikkim subject Rules, 1961 though repealed, are
relevant for the purpose of the Explanation to Clause 26
(AAA) of Section 10 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 only.
The Miscellaneous Applications stand disposed of in the
aforesaid terms.
In view of the above, Review Petition (C) D. Nos. 5450,
5075 and 5065 of 2023 stand disposed of.
All pending applications, including applications for
intervention and clarification, also stand disposed of.
This order shall be read as part and parcel of judgment
dated 13th January, 2023.
[M.R. SHAH]