TMI Blog2006 (2) TMI 200X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re the Regular Bench, the Learned Counsel for the assessee took a preliminary objection that this appeal could not be heard in the absence of requisite clearance from the High Power Committee known as "Committee on Disputes" (C.O.D) as constituted in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ONGC v. CCE 1995 Suppl. (4) SCC 541. Reliance was also placed on another decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. (MTNL) v. CBDT [2004] 267 ITR 647 and the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Delhi Tourism Transportation Development Corpn. Ltd. [2005] 274 ITR 352. According to him, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MTNL had held that a dispute involving in State Government Undertaking and the Income-tax Department could not be proceeded with in the absence of requisite clearance from C.O.D. But attention of the Bench was drawn to the decision of a Coordination Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Maharashtra Tourism Development Corpn. Ltd. v. Jt. CIT [IT Appeal Nos. 3505 and 3506 (M) 2001] in which it has been held that litigation involvi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ving as under: "3. This Court has on more than one occasion pointed out that Public Sector Undertakings of Central Government and the Union of India should not fight their litigations in Court by spending money on fees of counsel, court fees, procedural expenses and wasting public time. Courts are maintained for appropriate litigations, Court's time is not to be consumed by litigations which are carried on either side at public expenses from the source. Notwithstanding these observations repeated on a number of occasions, the present cases appear to be an instance of total callousness. The letter of October 3, 1988, indicated that the Cabinet Secretary was looking into the matter. That has not obviously been followed up. As an instance of wasting public time and energy this matter involves a principle to be examined at the highest level." In view of the above observations, the Apex Court called upon the Cabinet Secretary to handle the aforesaid matter personally and report to the Court as to why such litigation is being conducted when the two sides are Public Sector Undertaking and Union of India. The Cabinet Secretary in its report to the Apex Court stated as under: "I would ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case is that frivolous litigation between Government departments and public sector undertaking of the Union of India should not be dragged in the courts and be amicably resolved by the Commitee. The judgment is intended to prevent avoidable litigation between the Government departments and the undertakings of the Union of India. In the present litigation there does not appear to be a genuine dispute between the Government of India undertaking." In the case of Chief Conservator of Forests, Government of Andhra Pradesh, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had to consider a dispute between the Department of State Government and the Collector of the same State. After considering the earlier judgment in the case of ONGC their Lordships observed as under: "Under the scheme of the Constitution, Article 131 confers original jurisdiction on the Supreme Court in regard to a dispute between two States of the Union of India or between one or more States and the Union of India. It was not contemplated by the framers of the Constitution or CPC that two departments of a State or the Union of India will fight a litigation in a court of law. It is neither appropriate nor permissible for two departments o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of resolving the dispute; the Committee only has to refuse C permission to litigate. No right of the Department or the public-sector undertaking is affected in such a case. Even if the Department or the public sector undertaking finds the decision of the Committee unpalatable, discipline requires that they abide by it." The combined reading of the above judgments shows that Hon'ble Supreme Court, considering the provisions of Article 131 of the Constitution of India, observed that two arms of the Government should not fight their litigation in the Courts by spending money unnecessarily and wasting public time. Accordingly, their Lordships directed the Government of India to set up a committee consisting of the representatives from Ministry of Industry, Bureau of Public Enterprises and Ministry of Law to monitor the disputes arising between various Departments of Government of India and to ensure that such dispute comes to the Court only after clearance of such Committee. All the Courts and the Tribunals were also directed not to entertain any such litigation unless clearance is given by such committee. This mechanism came into existence to deal with the disputes between two or mo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chief Conservator of Forests for setting up of separate committee to deal with the litigation between two limbs of State Government. There is not even a single case where litigation was between Department of State Government and Department of Union of India. In view of the above discussions, in our opinion, the direction of the Apex Court in ONGC cannot be applied to a case where one litigant is Department/Undertaking of State Government and the other litigant is Department/Undertaking of Union of India. 6. Much reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and Rajasthan High Court by the Learned Counsel for the assessee. The judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court is in CIT v. Delhi Tourism and Transportation Development Corpn.'s case. We have gone through the said judgment. Their Lordships have quoted the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd.'s case and then observed as follows: "In the absence of a clearance by the High Powered Committee, the appeal is not required to be entertained at this stage and, therefore, we dismiss this appeal. However, it will b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e State Government and public sector undertakings of the Central Government or between one Department of the Central Government and the State Government or between the departments of Central Government and the departments of the State Government. Obviously, no such "High Powered Committee" could have been constituted by the Central Government to resolve the disputes between the Central Government and the State Governments for which purposes Constitution itself provides mechanism as well as the Forum for resolution of such disputes." Further at Pages 11 and 12 it was observed as under: "The disputes between the Centre and the State are required to be resolved in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution, which provides the mechanism as well as the Forum for resolution of all such disputes. There is no Forum, as such, created or constituted by the Central Government to resolve the disputes between the State Government public sector undertakings on the one hand and the departments of Central Government on the other. Nor there is any mechanism or Forum created and constituted for resolution of disputes between the State Government public sector undertakings and the Central ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
