2019 (12) TMI 1653 - HC - Income Tax

Fee payable to CA for Special Audits directed u/s 142(2A) - Nomination of the Special Auditor by the IT Department - Validity of order passed by the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, New Delhi ( MSME Council) whereby the matter has been referred to arbitration before the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) - HELD THAT - Respondent no. 1 submits that the jurisdiction of the MSME Council is de hors the provisions of the Income Tax Act as relied upon Section 24 of the MSMED Act, 2006 to argue that the provisions in Sections 15 to 23 shall have effect notwithstanding the provisions of the Income Tax Act. He also refers to the decision of M/s Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd vs. Micro and Small Enterprises Anr 2019 (2) TMI 2082 - DELHI HIGH COURT This issue would require consideration. Once Respondent no. 2 has been paid its statutory audit fees, in terms of the orders passed by this Court, the jurisdiction of MSME Council could not have been invoked. Till the next date of hearing, the order dated 19.09.2019 and the proceedings emanating therefrom shall remain stayed. List on 21st April, 2020.

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the MSME Council in a case involving payment of statutory audit fees under the Income Tax Act.
2. Applicability of provisions of the Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 in relation to disputes arising from audit fees.

Analysis:
The High Court of Delhi addressed a petition filed by the Income Tax Department challenging an order of the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (MSME Council) referring a dispute to arbitration. The petitioner contended that the respondent, a chartered accountant firm appointed for a special audit, had been paid the statutory fee under the Income Tax Act after a court directive. However, the respondent claimed additional dues through the MSME Council under the Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006. The petitioner argued that the MSME Council lacked jurisdiction as the fee issue fell under the Income Tax Act's purview, citing Section 293 which bars suits against proceedings under the Act. The respondent, on the other hand, asserted the MSME Act's provisions prevailed over the Income Tax Act, referencing Section 24 of the MSMED Act. The Court noted the need to examine whether the MSME Council's jurisdiction was valid post-payment of the audit fees as directed by the Court earlier.

The petitioner contended that once the statutory fee was paid, any grievance should be addressed under the Income Tax Act, and the MSME Council's intervention was unwarranted. The respondent argued that the MSME Act's provisions should apply independently of the Income Tax Act, citing a previous court decision. The Court expressed a prima facie view that invoking the MSME Council's jurisdiction after payment of statutory fees might not be appropriate. Consequently, the Court stayed the impugned order and related proceedings until the next hearing date for further consideration. The case raises crucial questions regarding the interplay between the Income Tax Act and the MSMED Act in resolving disputes over audit fees, particularly concerning the jurisdiction of specialized councils like the MSME Council in such matters. The Court's interim decision reflects the need for a detailed examination of the legal framework governing such disputes to ensure clarity and consistency in resolving financial claims involving government entities and private parties.

This judgment underscores the importance of delineating the boundaries of jurisdiction between statutory bodies like the MSME Council and established legal frameworks such as the Income Tax Act. It highlights the need for a nuanced understanding of how specialized dispute resolution mechanisms interact with broader legislative provisions to ensure effective and efficient resolution of financial disputes. The Court's cautious approach in staying proceedings pending further evaluation demonstrates a commitment to upholding legal principles while navigating complex jurisdictional issues arising from interrelated statutory frameworks. The case serves as a reminder of the intricacies involved in reconciling diverse legal regimes to promote fairness and clarity in resolving disputes with governmental entities.