TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 573X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... approval of the COD in terms of its earlier judgment was not required. Since the Supreme Court in Electronics Corporation (supra) has recalled its all earlier judgments whereby following the decision in ONGC s case (supra) direction was issued to resort to mechanism of settlement of inter/intra government disputes by referring matter to Committee on disputes and the said committee was set up, therefore, the judgment in ONGC s case (supra) no longer holds the field and it would be deemed that there was no requirement of COD approval for filing the appeal. The substantial question of law framed is thus, answered accordingly. I mpugned order passed by the Tribunal dismissing the appeals only on the ground that there was no sanction from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act ) for rectification of the mistake in the order of the Assessing Officer dated 21.03.2002 passed under Section 263/154 of the Act deleting certain additions. The learned Tribunal dismissed both the appeals vide order dated 15.12.2005 on the ground that both the appeals were filed by the Revenue without obtaining COD (Committee on Disputes) approval and as on the date of decision also no such COD approval was placed on record. The learned Tribunal while assigning the said reason took note of the judgment in ONGC vs. CCE (1992) Supp (2) SCC 432 wherein the Supreme Court held that when any dispute arises between a public sector undertaking and the Government Department, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... C s case (supra) and held that approval of the COD in terms of its earlier judgment was not required. The relevant extract of the said decision reads as under:- 12. By order dated 11-9-1991, reported in Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. CCE, 1992 Supp (2) SCC 432, this Court noted that public sector undertakings of the Central Government and the Union of India should not fight their litigations in court (SCC p. 432, para 3). Consequently, the Cabinet Secretary, Government of India was called upon to handle the matter personally . 13. This was followed by the order dated 11-10-1991 in ONGC-II case ( 1995 Supp (4) SCC 541, Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. CCE ), where this Court directed the Government of India to set up ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... object behind the aforestated orders is unexceptionable and laudatory, experience has shown that despite best efforts of the CoD, the mechanism has not achieved the results for which it was constituted and has in fact led to delays in litigation. We have already given two examples hereinabove. They indicate that on same set of facts, clearance is given in one case and refused in the other. This has led a PSU to institute a SLP in this Court on the ground of discrimination. We need not multiply such illustrations. 17. The mechanism was set up with a laudatory object. However, the mechanism has led to delay in filing of civil appeals causing loss of revenue. For example, in many cases of exemptions, the Industry Department gives exemption, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
