LexCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUJARAT versus GUJARAT FLUORO CHEMICALS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 10 S.C.R. 191 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUJARAT V. GUJARAT FLUORO CHEMICALS (Special Leave Petition (C) No. 11406 of 2008 etc.) SEPTEMBER 18, 2013 [H.L. DATIU, SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND M.Y. EQBAL, JJ.] .. A B Income Tax Act, 1961 - s. 214 and 244A - Whether Revenue li~ble to pay interest to assessee, if aggregate of C instalments of Advance Tax of TDS paid, exceeds the assessed tax - The question referred by Division Bench of Supreme Court for consideration - Doubting the correctness of judgment passed in *Sandvik Asia Ltd. case, whereby it was held that the assessee was entitled to be compensated by the D Revenue for delay in payment of interest on the amount admittedly due to the assessee - Held: Jn Sandvik case, the Court had directed the Revenue to pay compensation for the delay in payment of statutory interest and the same was not an interest on interest - s.244A (as inserted by Act No. 4 of E 1988) provides for interest on refunds under various conti!1gencies - Thus, it is only that interest provided under the statute which may be claimed by the assessee from the Revenue and no other interest on such statutory interest - Question answered accordingly. Sandvik Asia Limited vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors. (2006) 2 sec 508: 2006 (2) SCR 811 - referred to. Case Law Reference: 2006 (2) SCR 811 referred to Para 1 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : SLP (Civil) No. 11406 of 2008. 191 F G H 192 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 10 S.C.R. A From the Judgment and Order dated 03.07.2007 of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Special Civil Application No. 12855 of 1994. WITH B SLP (C) Nos. 14048, 14050, 14051, 14049, 14768, 20154, 21851, 25727, 27453, 27454, 27455, 27456, 27457, 27458, 27459, 27460, 27461, 27462, 27463, 27677 of 2012 & 5730, of 2013, C.A. Nos. 6301 of 2011, 2534, 2535, 2536, 2537, 2539,2540,2541,2542,2543,2944,2945,3436,3437,3445, C 3446, 5408, 7596, 7772 of 2012, 2589, 5478 of 2013, 4630, 3825, 3826 of 2012, 7217 of 2011, 4335, 4336, 4337, 4338, 4339,4340,4341,4342,4343,4344,4345,4346,4347,4348, 4349,4350,4351,4352,4353,4354,4355,4356,4357,4358, 4359, 4360, 4361, 4362, 4363, 4364, 4365 & 4366 of 2012. D Rajiv Dutta, R.P. Bhatt, M.S. Syali, Arijit Prasad, Rahul Kaushik, Sadhna Sandhu, B.V. Balaram Das, Anil Katiyar, Bhargava V. Desai, Shreyas Mehrotra, Priteesh Kapoor, Ranjit Raut, Anuj Dhir, Bina Gupta, Mohit Ch~udhary, Harsh Sharma, E Damini Chawla, Puja Sharma, Akshat Shrivastava, Siddharth Shrivastava, Manjeet Kripal Jayashree Wad, Ashish Wad, Tamali Wad, Kanika Baweja, Niharika Bapna (for J.S. Wad & - Co.), Sunil Kumar Jain, Shiv .Kumar Suri, Rustom B. Hathikhanawala, G.C. Srivastava, Preeti Bhardwaj, Vijay Kumar, Vabhav Kulkarni, Kavita Jha, Ruby Singh Ahuja, Neha F Gupta, Naomi Chandra, Manik Karanjawala (for Karanjawala & Co.) for the appearing parties. G H The following Order of the Court was delivered ORDER 1. Doubting the correctness or otherwise of the decision of this Court in the case of Sandvik Asia Limited vs. Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors., (2006) 2 SCC 508, a bench of two leamedJudges has referred the following question COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUJARAT v. 193 GUJARAT FLUORO CHEMICALS of law for our consideration and authoritative pronouncement A by order dated 28.08.2012: "The question which arises in this case is, whether interest is payable by the Revenue to the assessee if the aggregate of installments of Advance Tax OF TDS paid 8 exceeds the assessed tax?" 2. In the aforesaid order of reference, this Court has briefly noticed the facts and the discussion in Sandvik case (supra) wherein, the main issue for consideration and determination by this Court was, whether the assessee is entitled to be C compensated by the Revenue for delay in payment of the amount admittedly due to the assessee. This Col.lrt has noticed inter alia the provisions of Section 214 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') and in light of the same has doubted the correctness of the decision in Sandvik case (supra). D 3. In order to answer the aforesaid issue before us, we have carefully gone through the judgment of this Court in Sandvik case (supra) and the order of reference. We have also considered the submissions made by the parties to the tis. 4. We would first throw light on the reasoning and the decision of this Court on the core issue in Sandvik case (supra). The only
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.