2007 (8) TMI 50 - HC - Income Tax

Re-assessment Revenue contended that COD clearance not require where a Non-resident company represented by a PSU Held that revenue contention was correct and allowed

Issues Involved:
1. Whether COD clearance is necessary for entertaining an appeal filed by a non-government entity represented by a government undertaking.
2. Whether the agent (BHEL) representing the foreign company (Combustion Engineering Inc., USA) needs to obtain COD clearance.
3. Whether the Tribunal was correct in dismissing the appeal due to lack of COD clearance.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. COD Clearance Necessity for Non-Government Entities:

The primary issue is whether the Income Tax Tribunal was correct in holding that COD clearance is necessary for an appeal filed by Combustion Engineering Inc., USA, which is not a government department. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue on the grounds that COD approval had not been obtained, giving liberty to the Department to recall the order after obtaining COD approval.

The High Court analyzed the relevant legal provisions and precedents, including the Supreme Court's direction in the Oil and Natural Gas Commission vs. Collector of Central Excise (1995 Supp (4) SCC 541) case, which mandated COD approval for disputes involving government departments and public sector undertakings. However, the High Court clarified that this requirement does not extend to private entities or non-residents represented by public sector undertakings.

2. Requirement for Agent (BHEL) to Obtain COD Clearance:

The second issue pertains to whether the agent (BHEL) representing the foreign company (Combustion Engineering Inc., USA) must obtain COD clearance. The High Court noted that Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (BHEL), a public sector undertaking, was acting as a representative assessee for Combustion Engineering Inc., USA, under Section 160(1)(i) and Section 163 of the Income Tax Act. The Court emphasized that the agent's status does not transform the foreign company into a public sector undertaking, and therefore, the requirement for COD clearance does not apply.

3. Tribunal's Dismissal Due to Lack of COD Clearance:

The third issue involves the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the appeal due to the lack of COD clearance. The High Court scrutinized the Tribunal's order and found that the Tribunal misinterpreted the Supreme Court's direction in the ONGC case. The High Court pointed out that the direction for COD clearance is applicable only to disputes between government departments and public sector undertakings, not to cases involving private entities or non-residents represented by public sector undertakings.

The High Court cited several precedents, including Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited vs. Chairman, Central Board, Direct Taxes (2004) 267 ITR 647 (SC) and Union of India Through Central Organisation Railway vs. Union of India Through Secretary, Ministry of Finance (2006) 285 ITR 362 (All.), to support its conclusion that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the appeal without considering the merits of the case.

Conclusion:

The High Court concluded that the Tribunal's dismissal of the appeal on the grounds of lack of COD clearance was incorrect. It held that COD clearance is not required for disputes involving non-residents represented by public sector undertakings. The High Court set aside the Tribunal's order and directed it to restore the appeal and dispose of it on merits. All questions of law were answered in favor of the Revenue.

← Previous Next →