Guidelines with respect to proposals for SLP to be filed in S.C. - Income Tax - 1854/1990

INSTRUCTION NO. 1854/1990 Dated: september 5, 1990 A number of cases are being returned by the Central Agency Section of the Supreme Court for want of legible copy of High Court's judgement relied upon in the matter wherein SLP is to be filed. The order of High Court relied upon is an essential document for filing of SLP. It is, therefore, requested that while forwarding proposals for filing of SLPs, legible copies of judgement(s) relied upon may be sent alongwith the proposal to avoid any delay in filing of SLPs. It may also be ensured that the photostat copies of the various order etc., sent with the proposal, are complete and legible. 2. It is seen that the SLP proposals are sent at the last minute, giving very little time to the Board to examine the merits of the case. When the file is referred to the Ministry of Law, the case has to be examined in depth and requires reference to the Additional Solicitor General/Solicitor General/Attorney General. Since these steps take time, it is necessary that the proposals for filing of SLPs are sent well in time. The reason normally given for such delays is that the certified copies of High Court's impugned orders are received late. But this delay is mainly attributable to the failure on the part of the Department to move the Court immediately, seeking a certified copy of the decision. Necessary instructions may be issued to the Standing Counsels/Departmental counsels to apply for the certified copy immediately, say within one week of the pronouncement of the decision. 3. Often SLP proposals sent are incomplete, without enclosing copies of the orders of Assessing Officers or DC(A)/CIT(As.) or ITAT or the certified copies of the High Court order. Sending incomplete proposals does not serve any purpose as the Central Agency Section does not accept proposals which are incomplete. It may, therefore, be ensured that only proposals, complete in all respects, are sent to the Board for processing. 4. While sending the proposals, care is not being taken to fill proforma 'B' in entirety, particularly in giving the correct tax effect. This is a requirement to ascertain whether the case falls within the monetary limits fixed for filing of SLP. The opinion of the Standing Counsel also invariably be enclosed with the proposal. 5. Sometimes, the office of the Chief Commissioner sends proposals directly to the Central Agency Section at the last minute to avoid a case getting time barred. This too serves no useful purpose as the Central Agency Section does not accept proposals directly and the matter is, therefore, not likely to be attended to. It is, therefore, necessary that proposals are sent only to the income-tax (judicial) Section or to the Wealth-tax (judicial) Section of the Central Board of Direct Taxes, as the case may be for processing. 6. This may be brought to the notice of all officers in your region.