LexCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-VI versus M/S ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 108.C.R.1154 - 'r A ·COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-VI v. MIS ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. (Civil Appeal No. 4521 Of 2008) B JULY 18, 2008 "'+-" [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ] . Government Litigation - Disputes between the Govern- ment and the Public Sector Undertakings - Dismissal of c Rev~nue's appeal by High Court for not obtaining clearance from Committee of Disputes for litigation within one month from the date of filing appeal - On appeal;· held: There is no rigid time frame - Authorities have to take urgent action - Mere delay In approaching the Committee does not make the ac- D tion illegal ..:.. Court is to test whether there was any indiffer- ence C!n.d ieth'argy and in appropriate cases refuse to interfere -:... 1.- - On facts, such was not the position - Thus, order of High Court· set aside - High Court to consider whether to proceed ' ' in the .matter on receipt of Committee's report. E The question which arose for consideration in these appeals was whether the High Court erred in dismissing the Revenue's appeal holding thatsince the dispute was between the· Government-Income Tax Department ahd Public Sector Undertakings-Insurance Company, the De- ~ F partment was to obtain clearance from the Committee of Disputes within one month from the date of filing the ap- ~ peal and the same was not done. ~ . Partly allowing the appeals, the Court ; HELD: _1.1 There was actually no rigid time frame in- ! G dicated by Supreme Court. The emphasis on one month's time was to show urgency needed. Merely because there is some delay in approaching the Committee that does " not make the action illegal. The Committee is required to H 1154 + :I .... ' ,. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-VI v. MIS 1155 ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. deal with the matter expeditiously so that there is no un- necessary backlog of appeals which ultimately may not be pursued. In that sense, it is imperative that the con- cerned authorities take urgent action as otherwise the intended objective would be frustrated. There is no scope· for lethargy. It is to be tested by the Court as to whether' there was any indifference and lethargy and in appropri- ate cases refuse to interfere. In these cases factual posi- ' tion is not that. Therefore, the order of the High Court in · each case is set aside and this Court directs consider-· ation of the question of desirability to proceed in the mat-· ter before it on receipt of the report from the concerned Committee. (Para 10) [1160-A,8,C] 1.2 No opinion is expressed with regard to the sub- mission that even if the Committee has declined to grant permission it is still open to raise the issues in appropri- ate proceedings. But where the Committee has declined to deal with the matter on the ground of belated approach, the same cannot be sustained in view of the present or- der. The Committee has to consider the matter on merits. (Para 11) [1160-0,E] 1.3 Where permission has been granted by the Com- , mittee there is no impediment on the Court to examine , the matter and take a decision on merits. But where there , is no belated approach, the matter has to be decided. The Court has to decide whether because of unexplained de- lay and lethargic action it would decline to entertain the matters. That would depend on the factual scenario in each . case, and no straight jacket formula can be adopted. (Para . 12) [1160-E,F,G] Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Collector of Central · Excise 2004 (6) SCC 437; Oil and Natural Gas Commission and Anr. V Collector of Central Excise 1995 Supp (4) SCC 541; Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. V City & Industrial Development Corporation, Maharashtra Ltd. And Ors. 2007 A B c D E F G H• 1156 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S.C.R. f' A (7) sec 39 ....:. referred to. Case Law Reference 2004 (6) SCC 437 Referred to. Paras 2 and 5 1995 Supp (4) SCC 541 Referred to. Paras 6 and 7 --'+- B 2007 (7) SCC 39 Referred to. Para 9 ,._ CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4521 of 2008 · c From the final Judgment and Order dated 22.9.2005 of the High Courtof Delhi at New Delhi in I.TA. No. 470 of 2005 WITH C.A. No. 4522, 4523, 4524, 4525, 4526, 4527, 4528, D 4529, 4530 and 4537 of 2008 -~ Dr. R.G. Padia, Alka Sharma, Sanjeev Bhardwaj, Deb Kumar and B.V. Balaram Das for the Appellant. R.S. Suri, Mahua C. Kalra and Jagiit Singh Chhabra for E the Respondent
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.