New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (9) TMI 396 - ITAT CHENNAI

2016 (9) TMI 396 - ITAT CHENNAI - TMI - Rectification of mistake - all the appeals of the Revenue were dismissed by this Tribunal by orders dated 20.08.2007 and 21.01.2008 on the ground that the Revenue has not obtained the clearance of Committee on Disputes for filing these appeals - Held that:- The petitions filed by the Revenue on 15.01.2013 praying for recall the orders of this Tribunal dated 20.08.2007 and 21.01.2008 is beyond the period of limitation as provided under Section 254(2) of the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

resh, CA ORDER PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: All the three Miscellaneous Petitions are filed by the Revenue praying for recall of the orders of this Tribunal dated 20.08.2007 and 21.01.2008. 2. Shri B. Sagadevan, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that this Tribunal by orders dated 20.08.2007 and 21.01.2008 dismissed the appeals of the Revenue on the ground that the clearance of Committee on Disputes (Cabinet Secretariat) was not obtained in the light of the judgment of Apex C .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

. D.R., it may not be necessary for the Department to obtain the approval of Committee on Disputes, therefore, the Revenue has filed the Miscellaneous Petitions praying for recall of the orders of this Tribunal dated 20.08.2007 and 21.01.2008. On a query from the Bench, how these Miscellaneous Petitions were maintainable since admittedly the same were filed after expiry of four years period from the date of the orders of this Tribunal, the Ld. D.R. submitted that the period of limitation of four .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of the Act can be made suo moto by the Tribunal within four years from the date of order of the Tribunal or on the application filed by either one of the parties within four years from the date of the order of this Tribunal. In this case, the application filed by the Revenue on 15.01.2013 is admittedly beyond the period of four years from the date of order of this Tribunal. According to the Ld. representative, the orders of this Tribunal are dated 20.08.2007 and 21.01.2008 and the four year per .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

on the judgments of Bombay High Court in CIT v. Air India Ltd. (2016) 383 ITR 284 and in CIT v. Central Bank of India (2014) 51 taxmann.com 527. The Ld. representative has also placed his reliance on the judgment of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh High Court in CIT v. State Bank of Hyderabad (2016) 382 ITR 499. 4. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. Admittedly, all the appeals of the Revenue were dismissed by this Tribunal .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ng the appeals before this Tribunal and accordingly, the direction issued in Oil and Natural Gas Commission (supra) was recalled by the Apex Court. In view of the subsequent judgment of Apex Court in Electronics Corporation of India Ltd. (supra), the Revenue filed Miscellaneous Petitions before this Tribunal on 15.01.2013. After receipt of these Miscellaneous Petitions, the Registry has not processed the same and these were not even registered and numbered. In the meantime, this Tribunal suo mot .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

After referring to the records of the appeals, this Tribunal specifically found that the Miscellaneous Petitions filed by the Revenue on 15.01.2013 were not even numbered. Accordingly, the order passed by this Tribunal suo moto on 18.04.2013 was recalled and the orders passed on appeal by this Tribunal on 20.08.2007 and 21.01.2008 were restored. After the order of this Tribunal dated 31.07.2015 restoring the original orders on appeal dated 20.08.2007 and 21.01.2008, the Revenue filed a letter o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

.M. sd/- JM/13.04.16 Accordingly, the Registry registered the petitions allotting numbers 224, 225 & 226/Mds/2013. The fact remains that the Revenue filed the petitions on 15.01.02013 and these were not taken on file and not even numbered. When the matter was brought to the notice of the Bench by the Revenue on 20.11.2015, the Bench directed the Registry to register the petitions. Accordingly, the Miscellaneous Petitions ought to have been registered on or after 13.05.2016, i.e. after the di .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

well settled principles of law when the assessee/ Revenue filed a petition or appeal, it has to be scrutinized and should be registered in the year in which it was taken on file. The number should be allotted on the day on which the appeal was actually taken on file. In this case, the Miscellaneous Petitions were filed on 15.01.2013 and these were not taken on file till 13.04.2016. Therefore, the number should have been allotted after 13.04.2016. Be that as it may. Now coming to the application .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ed and disposed of finally by an order dated 20.08.2007 and 21.01.2008 under Section 254(1) of the Act. 7. A question may also arise whether orders passed by this Tribunal on 20.8.2007 and 21.01.2008 are interim orders or final orders passed under Section 254(1) of the Act? This was examined by Bombay High Court in Air India Ltd. (supra) and found that it is an order passed under Section 254(1) of the Act. Therefore, it is not an interim order. 8. Now the petitions of the Revenue were registered .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

llaneous Petitions were taken in the year 2013 itself. For the purpose of clarification, we reiterate that the application was taken on file and numbered after 13.04.2016 by the direction of the Bench on the letter filed by the Revenue on 20.11.2015. Therefore, for all practical purposes, it has to be construed that the application was taken on file and numbered in 2016. 9. Now coming to the present Miscellaneous Petition, admittedly, the Revenue filed the petitions on 15.01.2013, which is beyon .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ed by the Revenue. The Revenue filed an application for restoration on file. The application filed by the Revenue was dismissed by the Tribunal. Subsequently, a writ petition was filed challenging the order of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal before the Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi on the ground that as per the judgment of Apex Court in Electronics Corporation of India Ltd. (supra), clearance of Committee on Disputes is not required. The Jharkhand High Court found that .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s Corporation of India Ltd. (supra). 11. We have also carefully gone through the judgment of Bombay High Court in Air India Ltd. (supra). In the case before the Bombay High Court, the Department appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal for failure of obtaining clearance from Committee on Disputes. The Bombay High Court found that the order passed by the Tribunal dismissing the appeal is an order passed under Section 254(1) of the Act and held that the judgment of Apex Court consequently doing away w .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rt in State Bank of Hyderabad (supra). The Telangana and Andhra Pradesh High Court found that a citizen is entitled to have certainty with regard to his or her liability and issues which were settled long back should not be reopened as it would lead to upsetting the entire financial planning of the individual who has accepted an order as final. The Telangana and Andhra Pradesh High Court further found that the judgment of Apex Court in Electronics Corporation of India Ltd. (supra) was dated 17.0 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version