9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (10) TMI 21X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lly. In the instant situation, where the court has already provided the answer, to the issues raised in the reference; an approval for filing the reference was not a pre-requisite - since all that the reference sought to achieve was to bring the impugned judgment in line with an earlier decision of this court. If we are to take a strict view of the matter, the institution of the instant review app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Oil Natural Gas Commission vs Collector of Central Excise : (2004) 6 SCC 437. 2. We are of the view that the application is without merit, for more than one reason: First, the right to file a reference is conferred by the statute, the judgment of the Supreme Court does not seek to take away this right. A careful analysis of Oil Natural ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... date granting leave". [See: Bansidhar Shankarlal vs Mohd. Ibrahim : (1971) 41 Com Cases 21 (SC)]. Second, in view of the fact that it is not disputed that the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in CIT vs National Agricultural Co-operative Marketing Federation of India Ltd: (1999) 236 ITR 766 covered the issue raised in the reference, the Committee on Disputes could have either prev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the reference; an approval for filing the reference was not a pre-requisite - since all that the reference sought to achieve was to bring the impugned judgment in line with an earlier decision of this court. If we are to take a strict view of the matter, the institution of the instant review application ought to have had the approval of the Committee on Disputes. Which, it does not have. 3. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
