9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 547X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appeal filed by the revenue to intervene in the Company Petition no.11/2012 and Company Petition no.12/2012 on the ground that the Income Tax authorities had a right to be heard since the scheme if sanctioned by this Court, would entail huge losses to the revenue and also to the State and the Central Government. The learned Single Judge, after relying on the judgment of this Court in the case of Jindal Iron & Steel Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [Co. Application No. 123 of 2004, dated 2-9-2004] and another judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court, who had followed the judgment in the case of AVM Capital Services (P.) Ltd., In re was pleased to reject the said application for intervention. The contention raised by the learned counsel f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upra) and it was submitted that in the said case the tax liability had not been crystallized. In the case of "AVM Capital Services (P.) Ltd." (supra), the question was whether tax planning was permissible and whether it amounted to tax evasion. It was submitted that the said issue which was involved in the case of "AVM Capital" is not involved in the present case. The facts of the present case are clearly distinguishable and no reliance was placed on the said two judgments. It was then contended that MALCO was registered in Chennai and that the State would tend to lose a lot of revenue if Sesa Goa was merged with MALCO. 4. On the other hand, Shri A.N.S. Nadkarni, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent company submitt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... supra) and in the case of "AVM Capital Services (P.) Ltd." (supra). 6. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted. The ratio in the case of "S.R.F Ltd." (supra) cannot be applied in the present case. Perusal of the facts of the said case reveals that question which fell for consideration before the Apex Court was whether the board had a right to be heard. The Apex Court in paragraph 8 has observed as under: "It is true that no notice was issued by the Board either to the Central Government or to the CBDT. The Central Government shall be required to pass an order under s. 72A of the tax benefits and that, therefore, it is entitled to be heard. Since the merger scheme, which was given effect from 1st A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d approving its draft for sick company, the question was whether notice should be given by the board to the Central Government as well as to the CBDT. In the present case, VAL has incurred losses, but it has not been registered with the CBDT nor has it been declared sick and as such, the question of issuing notice to the CBDT or to the board or the CBDT to be heard does not arise. The issue before the Apex Court in the said case was that the Central Government was required to pass an order u/s 72A of the Tax Benefits Act and, therefore, it was held that it was entitled to be heard. The observations which are made in para 8 of the aforesaid judgment are in that context. As such, in our view, the said ratio does not apply to the facts of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
