Dismissing the petition the court held that ;Court cannot extend or reduce time contrary to statutory provisions .Summons issued only after notices were issued. Issue of parallel proceedings  is question of fact. The assessee had not placed any materials before the court to show that any order of sanction had been passed under section 55 , or steps had been taken to initiate prosecution. Furthermore, the order of sanction to prosecute passed under section 55 being an administrative act, the need to provide an opportunity of personal hearing to the accused did not arise. Section48(1) stated that Chapter V dealing with offences and prosecution should be independent of any order under the 2015 Act, that might be, or had not been made, on any person and it should be no defence that the order had not been made on account of time limitation or for any other reason. Thus, the language employed in the statute, included “offences and prosecution”, as contained in Chapter V, as independent of other proceedings enunciated under the 2015 Act. Section 48 commenced by stating that Chapter V was not in derogation of any other law or any other provision of the 2015 Act. Based on the apprehension of the assessee, a writ of prohibition could not be issued to prevent the authorities from initiating prosecution, as that would render the provisions of section 48 inoperative. ( AY.2015-16)