9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (12) TMI 33X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pecial deduction under sections 80HHA, 80-I and 80JJ of the Act. An intimation under section 143(1) was issued. Deductions claimed were disallowed and the total tax liability of Rs. 10,43,045 was determined. After adjustment, the total tax payable was Rs. 10,29,382. This included levy of interest under section 234B of the Act. A representation was made by the petitioner in the light of the judgment of this court and in the light of the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and based on those judgments, the assessing authority passed an order under section 154 of the Act and tax was determined at Rs. 1,48,620. A notice of demand was received and the petitioner paid this tax demand in the regular assessment. For the assessment year 1994-9 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dition precedent to claim this deduction and further ruled that the units engaged in poultry farming or hatcheries do not manufacture or produce articles and hence they are not entitled for special deductions. Assessments were re-opened in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court. Notices were issued in terms of annexures "B" to "B3". Returns were submitted by the petitioner on January 31, 2001, and thereafter assessments were concluded in terms of annexures "D" to "D3". The petitioner thereafter filed petitions under section 119(2)(a) seeking for waiver of interest charged under section 234B of the Act before the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Bangalore. A common order was passed on February 20, 2003. In the order, the Chief Comm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me was accepted. The jurisdictional High Court judgment was subsequently reversed by the Supreme Court in the case of Venkateswara Hatcheries (P.) Ltd. [1999] 237 ITR 174 and in those circumstances, the assessment proceedings were reopened and interest was levied. The petitioner moved the Chief Commissioner. The Chief Commissioner, after noticing the material facts has ruled in paras. 4 and 5 reading as under: "The decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Rahebar Farms v. CIT was pronounced on October 23, 1992, which was in favour of the assessee and the Supreme Court's decision reversing the above High Court's decision was pronounced on March 24, 1999. In view of this, the petitioner is entitled for waiver of interest as p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rovision. The Supreme Court has considered the binding effect of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Shenoy and Co. v. CTO [1985] 155 ITR 178; AIR 1985 SC 621. In the said case, the court ruled that the law laid down by the Supreme Court is binding on all, notwithstanding the fact that it is against the State or a private party and it is binding on even those who were not parties before the court. A mere reading of article 141 brings into sharp focus its expanse and its all-pervasive nature. The facts in that case would show that the validity of the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas was challenged in this court. This court has struck down the Act as invalid. The State filed an appeal in only one case. The State ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is court. If the law so declared invalid is held constitutionally valid, effective and binding by the Supreme Court, the mandamus forbearing the authorities from enforcing its provisions would become ineffective and the authorities cannot be compelled to perform a negative duty. The declaration of the law is binding on everyone and it is, therefore, futile to contend that the mandamus would survive in favour of those parties against whom appeals were not filed." This judgment would show that the temporary shadow cast by the judgment of this court gets collapsed in the light of a subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court. This judgment supports the view taken by the Department. The Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Anjum M. H. Ghaswala [2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rcumstances. The argument of Sri Parthasarathi, learned counsel is that the jurisdictional judgment of the High Court was available to him on an earlier occasion. It has now been reversed in the light of the subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court in the given case. Once the Supreme Court laid down law, it is deemed to be the law not only in the light of the judgment but even for the earlier period. Therefore, the petitioner is liable to pay interest for the whole period and in terms of the waiver provision, interest is substantially reduced. Justice has been done to the parties. I do not think that in this case, I should interfere in the given circumstances. The order is confirmed. At this stage, I must also notice the argument of the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
