[ By Bobby Anthony ]The Gujarat High Court has allowed an appeal filed by one Bandish Saurabh Soparkar seeking a declaration that he would not be in default of any proceedings if his permanent account number (PAN) is not linked with Aadhaar Card number or if the Aadhar number is not quoted.“The applicant needs to be protected by directing that his PAN shall not be declared inoperative and...
The Gujarat High Court has allowed an appeal filed by one Bandish Saurabh Soparkar seeking a declaration that he would not be in default of any proceedings if his permanent account number (PAN) is not linked with Aadhaar Card number or if the Aadhar number is not quoted.
“The applicant needs to be protected by directing that his PAN shall not be declared inoperative and the applicant may not be subjected to the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 139AA of the Aadhaar Act till the judgment of the Supreme Court in Roger Mathew V South Indian Bank Ltd is delivered and available,” the Gujarat High Court has stated.
The applicant’s lawyer S N Soparkar submitted that his client has a prima facie case for not linking his permanent account number (PAN) with Aadhaar in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in Justice K S Puttaswamy which has been referred to a larger bench.
He said that his client would face irreparable injury if the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 139AA of the Act be made operative against him inasmuch as the applicant would not be able to transact as mentioned in rule 114B of the Income Tax Rule and also not upload the return of income.
He argued that such restrictions would not only cause grave injury to the applicant but also make the applicant face financial as well as criminal consequences for the same.
It was submitted that the applicant has filed his income tax returns regularly and the only issue is that by virtue of the proviso to Section 139AA of the Act, his PAN would become inoperative. If the PAN is suspended, then he would not be able to operate his bank account, it was submitted.
However, Senior Advocate M R Bhatt submitted that the Supreme Court judgment in the Justice K S Puttaswamy has taken into account all facets of Section 139AA of the Act. He contended that the matter has been referred to a larger bench only to decide if it was right to pass the act as a Money Bill.
Bhatt stated that once the provision of Section 139AA of the Act has been upheld, the Gujarat High Court ought not to stay the operation thereof. He said that granting any stay or relief to the applicant would be tantamount to granting a stay against operation of the Supreme Court decision. Moreover, granting any relief to the applicant would have wide repercussions across the entire country.
The applicant’s lawyer countered that in view of the Act’s reference to a larger bench, it is not correct to say that the issue is final and conclusive inasmuch as the issue is still at large before the Supreme Court. It was urged that all that the applicant has asked for is that he be excused from the effects of provisions in Section 139AA of the Act.
The Gujarat High Court noted that it has been pointed out by the lawyer of the applicant, that the Supreme Court, vide its judgment and order made in the case of Rojer Mathew versus South Indian Bank Ltd, has referred the issue for consideration by a larger bench.
“The validity of the Aadhaar Act therefore, has not attained finality,” the Gujarat High Court stated.
“In the event, that a larger Supreme Court bench holds that the Aadhaar Act could not have been introduced as a Money Bill, Section 139AA of the Act would be rendered redundant. Therefore, if the applicant is directed to abide by the provisions of Section 139AA of the Act, in the event the challenge to the Aadhaar Act being introduced as a Money Bill were to succeed, it would not be possible to turn the clock back,” the Gujarat High Court stated.
This is because the applicant would be required to provide all necessary information for obtaining an Aadhaar card and the claim of privacy of the applicant would be lost for all time to come, the Gujarat High Court stated.
“Under the circumstances, the court is of the view that to balance the equities, the applicant needs to be protected by directing that his PAN shall not be declared inoperative and he may not be subjected to the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 139AA of the Act till the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rojer Mathew Versus South Indian Bank Ltd is delivered and available,” the Gujarat High Court ruled.