9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (11) TMI 111X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e DDA audited as per the provisions of Section 142 (2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("Act"). 2. On 5.10.2005, this Court directed notice to issue in this writ petition and stayed further proceedings in the meanwhile. On 25.7.2006, this Court directed the learned counsel for the parties to find out whether the dispute raised in the case is referable to the Committee on Disputes (COD). In the meanwhile, the respondents filed an application being CM 9291 of 2006 on 27.7.2006 seeking extension of time for completion of assessment since the limitation would be expiring by 28.7.2006. On 31.7.2006 this Court directed notice to issue in the said application. 3. On 13.9.2006 the learned counsel for the DDA-petitioner sought further time to f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... process before the disputes reach the court or Tribunal or are taken up by them for adjudication; (iii) In the event the dispute is unable to be resolved by the High Powered Committee, it shall grant the clearance for the litigation in the Court or Tribunal as the case may be. (iv) Where there is the possibility of the appeal or petition becoming time barred, it will be open to the party concerned to file such appeal or petition within the time prescribed even before obtaining clearance. (v) However, the party shall within a month of such filing, approach the High Powered Committee for clearance, with prior notice to the designated authority in the Cabinet Secretariat of the Government of India authorized to receive notices in that b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hey abide by it. Otherwise the whole purpose of this exercise will be lost and every party against whom the decision is given will claim that they have been wronged and that their rights are affected. This should not be allowed to be done."(emphasis supplied) 7. We find that the decision in Canara Bank (supra), which was prior to MTNL (supra) turned on its own facts. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was of the view that the disputes there "does not appear to be a genuine dispute between the Government of India undertakings." It has further held that "the real litigation in that case was between the Mutual Fund and NTPC and not between the two undertakings." It was in those circumstances that it was held that the ONGC (supra) judgme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
