TMI Blog2007 (5) TMI 202X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Special Bench of the Tribunal granted relief to the petitioner by requiring a deposit of only Rs. 4.86 crores. This is, of course, one possible way of looking at the issue. However, it has to be remembered that the State is bound to be fair to those with whom it has to deal with, and to the extent possible, it must avoid any harassment to the assessee public without causing any loss to the exchequer. Therefore, if one looks at the matter in a broader perspective (and there is no reason why we should not), then it would be necessary to take into account the tax liability of the petitioner for the entire period in respect of which the dispute is still alive, that is to say from the assessment year 1997-98 till the assessment year 2003-04. If this is done and an across the board review is taken of the tax liability of the petitioner as well as the amounts paid by the petitioner, as has actually been done by the Tribunal in its order, then the petitioner would be entitled to a refund. On the other hand, if each year is taken separately, then of course there would be a liability against the petitioner for the assessment year 2003-04 but such a narrow or constricted view does not co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o Indian customers is taxable in India. 3. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Assessing Officer, the petitioner preferred an appeal which is pending before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (the CIT(A) ). Before the appellate authority, the petitioner asked for a stay of deposit of the tax and interest and it seems that the petitioner was asked to indicate, according to it, the amount due by way of tax. The petitioner relied upon a judgment delivered by the Special Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) dated June 22, 2005, in the case of the petitioner itself and pertaining to the assessment years 1997-98 and 1998-99, and responded by saying that if the judgment is implemented by the Revenue, the liability of the petitioner would be about Rs. 4.86 crores for the assessment year 2003-04. On this basis given by the petitioner, it was asked to deposit an amount of Rs. 4.86 crores by the Revenue. 4. Feeling aggrieved by this demand, the petitioner preferred this writ petition praying for a stay of the demand. 5. As mentioned above, there is a decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of the petitioner itself for the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Consequently, the petitioner moved an application for modification of the order dated June 3, 2005. By an order dated July 29, 2005, the Tribunal noted that the petitioner seems to have paid excess tax of about Rs. 16.90 crores (if the order of the Special Bench is implemented) and that the petitioner had also paid Rs. 50 lakhs in terms of the order dated June 3, 2005, and so, relying on the decision of the Special Bench, the Tribunal modified its earlier order dated June 3, 2005, and relieved the petitioner of its requirement to pay the balance amount of Rs. 1 crore in terms of the order dated June 3, 2005. In other words, against a liability of Rs. 15.74 crores, the Tribunal was satisfied with the petitioner' s deposit of Rs. 50 lakhs primarily in view of the applicability of the decision of the Special Bench. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner mentioned these details pertaining to the three assessment years to impress upon us the fact that even the Tribunal had felt bound by the order passed by the Special Bench and, therefore, it had granted interim relief to the petitioner. It was submitted that on this very basis, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) also ought ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal, that cannot furnish any ground for not following it, unless its operation has been suspended by a competent court. The Supreme Court went on to say that if this healthy rule is not followed, the result will not only be undue harassment to assessees but chaos in the administration of tax laws. 14. In CIT v. Ralson Industries Ltd. [2007] 288 ITR 322 (SC) ; [2007] 2 SCC 326, the Supreme Court held (page 326 of ITR) : When an order is passed by a higher authority, the lower authority is bound thereby keeping in view the principles of judicial discipline. 15. The Supreme Court drew support from Bhopal Sugar Industries Ltd. v. ITO [1960] 40 ITR 618 wherein it was held (page 622) : If a subordinate tribunal refuses to carry out directions given to it by a superior tribunal in the exercise of its appellate powers, the result will be chaos in the administration of justice . . . 16. It was further observed in Bhopal Sugar Industries Ltd. v. ITO [1960] 40 ITR 618 (SC) (page 623) : The Judicial Commissioner was not sitting in appeal over the Tribunal and we do not think that, in the circumstances of this case, it was open to him to say that the order of the T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the entire period in respect of which the dispute is still alive, that is to say from the assessment year 1997-98 till the assessment year 2003-04. If this is done and an across the board review is taken of the tax liability of the petitioner as well as the amounts paid by the petitioner, as has actually been done by the Tribunal in its order dated July 29, 2005, then the petitioner would be entitled to a refund. On the other hand, if each year is taken separately, then of course there would be a liability against the petitioner for the assessment year 2003-04 but such a narrow or constricted view does not commend itself to us since it would unnecessarily deprive an assessee of good money due to it from the Revenue. Looked at in this larger perspective, we are of the view that the petitioner would be entitled to the relief prayed for since it has, quite clearly, paid more than the amount that is due if the order passed by the Special Bench is implemented. 20. In arriving at this conclusion, we have also taken note of the fact that the order of the Special Bench has not been stayed and is still operative and has in fact been given effect to by the Tribunal itself in its order da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
