SLP (Civil) No. 11406 of 2008 with SLP (C) Nos. 14048, 14050, 14051, 14049, 14768, 20154, 21851, 25727, 27453, 27454, 27455, 27456, 27457, 27458, 27459, 27460, 27461, 27462, 27463, 27677 of 2012 & 5730 of 2013, C.A. Nos. 6301 of 2011, 2534, 2535, 2536, 2537, 2539, 2540, 2541, 2542, 2543, 2944, 2945, 3436, 3437, 3445, 3446, 5408, 7596, 7772 of 2.... Case: Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat Vs Gujarat Fluro Chemicals. Supreme Court
|Case Number:||SLP (Civil) No. 11406 of 2008 with SLP (C) Nos. 14048, 14050, 14051, 14049, 14768, 20154, 21851, 25727, 27453, 27454, 27455, 27456, 27457, 27458, 27459, 27460, 27461, 27462, 27463, 27677 of 2012 & 5730 of 2013, C.A. Nos. 6301 of 2011, 2534, 2535, 2536, 2537, 2539, 2540, 2541, 2542, 2543, 2944, 2945, 3436, 3437, 3445, 3446, 5408, 7596, 7772 of 2...|
|Party Name:||Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat Vs Gujarat Fluro Chemicals|
|Counsel:||For Appearing Parties: Rajiv Dutta, R.P. Bhatt, M.S. Syali, Sr. Advs., Arijit Prasad, Rahul Kaushik, Sadhna Sandhu, B.V. Balaram Das, Anil Katiyar, Bhargava V. Desai, Shreyas Mehrotra, Priteesh Kapoor, Ranjit Raut, Anuj Dhir, Bina Gupta, Mohit Chaudhary, Harsh Sharma, Damini Chawla, Puja Sharma, Akshat Shrivastava, Siddharth Shrivastava, ...|
|Judges:||H.L. Dattu, Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya and M.Y. Eqbal, JJ.|
|Issue:||Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 214, 244A|
|Citation:||2013 (262) CTR (SC) 269, 2013 (296) ELT 433 (SC), 2013 (358) ITR 291 (SC), 2013 (12) SCALE 281, 2014 (1) SCC 126|
|Judgement Date:||September 18, 2013|
Doubting the correctness or otherwise of the decision of this Court in the case of Sandvik Asia Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors. (2006) 2 SCC 508, a bench of two learned Judges has referred the following question of law for our consideration and authoritative pronouncement by order dated 28.08.2012:
The question which arises in this case is, whether interest is payable by the Revenue to the Assessee if the aggregate of installments of Advance Tax of TDS paid exceeds the assessed tax?
In the aforesaid order of reference, this Court has briefly noticed the facts and the discussion in Sandvik case (supra) wherein, the main issue for consideration and determination by this Court was, whether the Assessee is entitled to be compensated by the Revenue for delay in payment of the amount admittedly due to the Assessee. This Court has noticed inter alia the provisions of Section 214 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') and in light of the same has doubted the correctness of the decision in Sandvik case (supra).
In order to answer the aforesaid issue before us, we have carefully gone through the judgment of this Court in Sandvik case (supra) and the order of reference. We have also considered the submissions made by the parties to the lis.
We would first throw light on the reasoning and the decision of this Court on the core issue in Sandvik case (supra). The only issue formulated by this Court for its consideration and decision was whether an Assessee is entitled to be compensated by the Income Tax Department for the delay in paying interest on the refunded amount admittedly due to the Assessee. This Court in the facts of the said case had noticed that there was delay of various periods, ranging from 12 to 17 years, in such payment by the Revenue. This Court had further referred to the several decisions which were brought to its notice and also referred to the relevant provisions of the Act which provide for refunds to be made by the Revenue when a superior forum directs refund of certain amounts to an Assessee while disposing of an appeal, revision etc.
Since, there was an inordinate delay on the part of the Revenue in refunding the amount due to the Assessee this Court had thought it fit that the Assessee should be properly and adequately compensated and therefore in paragraph 51 of the judgment, the Court while compensating the Assessee had directed the Revenue to pay a compensation...
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR TRIAL