2017 (11) TMI 1494 - SC - Income Tax

Monetary limit for filing appeal - implementation of Instruction No.3 of 2011 dated 9.2.2011, providing for appeals not to be filed before the High Court(s) where the tax impact was less than ₹ 10 lakh - retrospectivity of circular - Held that - In our view the matter has been squarely put to rest taking further care of the interest of the Revenue by the order passed by the three Judges Bench of this Court in Surya Herbal Ltd. case 2011 (8) TMI 137 - Supreme Court of India , which had put two caveats even to the retrospective application of the Circular. The subsequent orders have been passed by the two Judges Bench without those orders being brought to the notice of the Court, a duty which was cast on the Department to have done so to avoid the ambiguity which has arisen. Thus, the said view of the three Judges Bench would hold water and the Circular would apply even to pending matters but subject to the two caveats provided in Surya Herbal Ltd. case (supra). Liberty is given to the Department to move the High Court pointing out that the Circular dated 9th February, 2011, should not be applied ipso facto, particularly, when the matter has a cascading effect. There are cases under the Income Tax Act, 1961, in which a common principle may be involved in subsequent group of matters or large number of matters. In our view, in such cases if attention of the High Court is drawn, the High Court will not apply the circular ipso facto.

Issues Involved:
1. Propensity of government departments to litigate.
2. Implementation of National Litigation Policy.
3. Application of Instruction No.3 of 2011 regarding tax impact limits for filing appeals.
4. Divergence of views among High Courts on the retrospective application of the circular.
5. Supreme Court's stance on the retrospective applicability of the circular.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Propensity of Government Departments to Litigate:
The judgment begins by highlighting the tendency of government departments, particularly the Income Tax Department, to engage in prolonged litigation, contributing significantly to the docket explosion in Indian courts. The process involves multiple tiers of scrutiny, starting from the Assessing Officer and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), followed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), High Courts, and ultimately, the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

2. Implementation of National Litigation Policy:
To address the rising litigation, the Union of India introduced the National Litigation Policy aimed at reducing the pendency of cases and ensuring that meaningful issues are decided by judicial forums. The policy emphasizes that the government, being a major litigant, should avoid being a compulsive litigant and focus on responsible litigation. The Income Tax Department issued administrative circulars/notifications to refrain from litigating cases with low revenue impact.

3. Application of Instruction No.3 of 2011:
The case revolves around Instruction No.3 of 2011, which set a threshold of ?10 lakh for filing appeals before High Courts. This instruction superseded the earlier Instruction No.1979 of 2000, which had a limit of ?4 lakh. The key issue was whether this instruction should apply retrospectively to pending cases filed before its issuance.

4. Divergence of Views Among High Courts:
There was a split among High Courts on the retrospective application of the circular:
- Karnataka High Court: Held that the circular should apply to pending cases to achieve the policy's objective of reducing litigation (Ranka & Ranka case).
- Bombay High Court: Supported the retrospective application, emphasizing the need for the Revenue to focus on high-stake cases (Pithwa Engg. Works and Madhukar K. Inamdar cases).
- Madhya Pradesh and Delhi High Courts: Also supported retrospective application (Ashok Kumar Manibhai Patel & Co. and P.S. Jain & Co. cases).
- Punjab & Haryana, Chhattisgarh, Madras, and Kerala High Courts: Held that the circular should apply only prospectively (Varindera Construction Co., Navbharat Explosives Co. P. Ltd., Kodanand Tea Estates Co., and John L. Chackola cases).

5. Supreme Court's Stance on Retrospective Applicability:
The Supreme Court addressed the divergence of views:
- In Surya Herbal Ltd., a three-judge bench allowed the retrospective application of the circular with two caveats: it should not apply ipso facto in cases with a cascading effect or where common principles are involved in multiple matters.
- Subsequent two-judge bench decisions in Suman Dhamija and Gemini Distilleries did not consider the Surya Herbal Ltd. order, leading to ambiguity.
- In Century Park, the Supreme Court followed the Surya Herbal Ltd. decision.

The Supreme Court concluded that the circular should apply retrospectively to pending cases, subject to the caveats mentioned in Surya Herbal Ltd. This decision aims to provide clarity and consistency across High Courts and aligns with the National Litigation Policy's objective of reducing unnecessary litigation.

Conclusion:
The appeals of the Revenue were dismissed, affirming that Instruction No.3 of 2011 applies retrospectively to pending cases, with specific exceptions as outlined in the Surya Herbal Ltd. case. This judgment underscores the importance of responsible litigation and the need for government departments to avoid being compulsive litigants.

← Previous Next →