2015 (4) TMI 1144 - HC - Income Tax

Objections to the effect that Notice not issued - Held that - We do not understand whether by this endorsement the Registry is indicating that it has not issued any notice to the opposite party simply because it was not provided with the paper-books or additional copies of the Reference paper-books. If that is how the Registry is proceeding, then, it is for the Revenue s advocate to satisfy the Registry that even though a copy may not be supplied to the Registry to effect the service or to issue notice, yet, the other procedural formalities have been completed by the Revenue. Let the Revenue s representatives and advocates, therefore, appear before the Registry officials and indicate as to how the office objections have been complied with. We grant the same time of eight weeks as is granted in other cases . we would be spared answering the questions in individual References after they are called out serially. If such an exercise as is expected from the parties is undertaken and the Registry is reported the number of matters and cases from this list of 1500 References and which are covered one way or the other, we would immediately take them up and dispose them off accordingly. We would expect parties to take this trouble and labour and inform and intimate the Registry. We would also expect that the remaining cases are notified for directions on 7th May, 2015. In other words, References other than those listed on 9th April, 2015, 16th April, 2015 and 23rd April, 2015 and today shall be listed for directions on 7th May, 2015.

Summary

Issues:
1. Compliance with procedural formalities for income tax reference cases.
2. Clarification on the issuance of notices and completion of office objections.
3. Streamlining the process for handling pending income tax reference cases.

Comprehensive Analysis:

Issue 1: Compliance with procedural formalities for income tax reference cases
The judgment addresses the procedural shortcomings in a large number of income tax reference cases pending before the court. The Registry had noted various issues such as missing books, incomplete paperwork, and lack of notices. The court emphasized the importance of fulfilling these procedural requirements to ensure a smooth adjudication process. It directed the parties to rectify the deficiencies and comply with all necessary formalities within a specified timeframe.

Issue 2: Clarification on the issuance of notices and completion of office objections
The judgment highlighted concerns regarding the issuance of notices, particularly when the Registry noted "Notice not issued" due to procedural lapses. The court sought clarification on whether the lack of notice was solely due to missing paperwork or if other formalities had been duly completed by the Revenue. It instructed the Revenue's representatives to address these objections and demonstrate compliance with procedural requirements. The court granted additional time for the parties to rectify the deficiencies and ensure that all necessary steps were taken to move the cases forward.

Issue 3: Streamlining the process for handling pending income tax reference cases
In an effort to expedite the resolution of a significant backlog of income tax reference cases dating back to 1995, the court proposed a streamlined approach. It urged the parties to inform the Registry about cases where questions of law had already been addressed either by the court or the Supreme Court. This proactive step would help in identifying cases that could be disposed of without redundant deliberations. The court set a deadline for parties to provide this information and scheduled a future date for directions on cases not covered by the streamlined process.

Overall, the judgment focused on improving the efficiency and effectiveness of handling a large volume of income tax reference cases by emphasizing compliance with procedural formalities, addressing objections promptly, and streamlining the process through proactive communication with the Registry.