2009 (10) TMI 21 - HC - Income Tax

Review of order held that - , the entire purpose of routing matters through the Committee on Disputes is that, the State and/or its instrumentalities do not fritter away valuable funds, and clog the courts with disputes which perhaps can be resolved inter-departmentally. In the instant situation, where the court has already provided the answer, to the issues raised in the reference; an approval for filing the reference was not a pre-requisite - since all that the reference sought to achieve was to bring the impugned judgment in line with an earlier decision of this court. If we are to take a strict view of the matter, the institution of the instant review application ought to have had the approval of the Committee on Disputes. Which, it does not have. Review applicatin dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Review of court order sought based on the non-approval of the "Committee on Disputes" in a reference case involving a public sector undertaking.

Analysis:
The judgment delivered by the court addressed the application seeking a review of an order dated 14.07.2008, primarily on the grounds that the applicant, a public sector undertaking, was involved in a reference case without the prior approval of the "Committee on Disputes." The court, in its analysis, highlighted that the right to file a reference is statutory and not taken away by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Oil & Natural Gas Commission vs Collector of Central Excise. The court emphasized that the judgment in question and related precedents do not render a reference as not maintainable if filed without approval. It drew a parallel from a Supreme Court case regarding the interpretation of a provision of the Indian Companies Act, emphasizing that once approval is obtained, the proceedings are deemed instituted from that date. Furthermore, the court noted that since the issue raised in the reference was covered by a previous Division Bench judgment, the Committee on Disputes could have either directed compliance by the assessee or permitted the department to file the reference.

The court further reasoned that the reference to the Committee on Disputes is necessary only if a dispute exists, and in this case, where the issue was not res integra, there was no need to approach the Committee. The court emphasized that routing matters through the Committee on Disputes aims to prevent the wastage of funds and unnecessary court disputes, especially when the court has already provided an answer to the raised issues. The court concluded that the review application lacked the approval of the Committee on Disputes, which should have been sought if a strict view were to be taken. Therefore, the application seeking a review was dismissed by the court.

However, the court clarified that the dismissal of the application does not prevent the review petitioner from approaching the Committee on Disputes for addressing any recovery of dues following the court's judgment. This aspect ensures that the petitioner still has the opportunity to seek redressal through the appropriate channel despite the dismissal of the review application.