Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5038 OF 2016
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 26747 OF 2012)
DIRECTOR GENERAL OF INCOME TAX (ADMN.)
& ANR.
…..APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
M/S. GTC INDUSTRIES LTD. & ANR. .....RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
A.K. SIKRI, J.
Leave granted.
2) Respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Company'),
namely, M/s GTC Industries Ltd. became sick Company
sometime in the year 1997 as its net worth had eroded. As per the
requirements of Section 15 of The Sick Industrial Companies
(Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the
'SICA'), it filed reference before the Board of Industrial and
Financial Reconstruction (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board')
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NIDHI AHUJA
Date: 2016.07.27
15:26:53 IST
Reason:
which was admitted and registered as Case No.17/1997. The
Board conducted enquiry into the working of Company to
Civil Appeal No. 5038 of 2016
(arising out of SLP (C) No. 26747 of 2012) Page 1 of 27
determine whether it had become a sick industrial company and
in the process appointed the Managing Director, State Bank of
India (MA) (RCB), Mumbai as the Operating Agency (OA) to
enquire into and make a report with respect to certain matters
which was specified in the orders passed by the Board in this
behalf. The Board, on the completion of the enquiry, satisfied
itself that Company had become a sick industrial company. A
Draft Rehabilitation Scheme (DRS) was prepared by the OA
which was submitted to the Board and the Board circulated the
said Scheme vide its order dated 14.01.2000. In this DRS,
following income tax reliefs were proposed:
(a) To exempt from the applicability of the provisions of Section
41(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and to allow carry forward of
unabsorbed losses and allowances beyond eight years.
(b) To lift attachment order imposed by Income Tax Department
against immovable and movable properties including Debtors and
Bank Accounts. Thereafter, not to attach any property including
movable properties of the company during the rehabilitation
period.
(c) To grant stay against demand raised by Department but are
Civil Appeal No. 5038 of 2016
(arising out of SLP (C) No. 26747 of 2012) Page 2 of 27
in dispute before various appellate authorities/Courts.
(d) To waive interest and penalty, if any, imposed and not to
levy such interest and penalties during the rehabilitation period.
(e) To exempt GTC from Capital Gain on sale of surplus land
and/or sale of industrial sheds proposed for development on
surplus land at Marol.
(f) To exempt from TDS against payments to be received by
the company.
Objection was filed by the appellant against the DRS on
23.03.2001. During hearing dated 29.03.2001, the representative of
the appellant stated that the appellant had no objection if the reliefs and
concessions sought were not directed to be given but kept for the
consideration of the Income Tax Department.
3) The Scheme of reconstruction/rehabilitation which was submitted
by the OA, after consultation with all the stakeholders and
creditors as per the requirement of law, was approved and
sanctioned by the Board (hereinafter referred to as the 'SS-02')
vide order dated 16.02.2002. It may be mentioned here that after
the DRS was circulated and before it could be sanctioned, the
Civil Appeal No. 5038 of 2016
(arising out of SLP (C) No. 26747 of 2012) Page 3 of 27
income tax demand of Rs.366 crores was intimated by the
Income Tax Department (appellant herein) to OA on 01.08.2001.
While sanctioning the Scheme on 16.12.2002, the following
income tax reliefs were kept in the Scheme:
“(a) To consider exemption from the
applicability of the provisions of Sections 41(1),
115JB, 43-B and 72(3) of the Income Tax Act,
1961 and to allow carry forward of Unabsorbed
Losses and allowances beyond eight years.
(b) To consider waiving interest and penalty, if
any, imposed and not to levy such interest and
penalties during the rehabilitation period.
(c) To consider exempting GTC from Capital
Gain on sale of surplus land and/or sale of
industrial sheds proposed for development on
surplus land at Marol and/or sale of any other
surplus assets.
(d) To consider exempting GTC from TDS
against payments to be received by the
company.”
Besides this, under the head 'General Terms and Conditions' in
Para 10(k) of the Rehabilitation Scheme, the Board directed with regard
to the income tax dues as under:
“10(k): The Income Tax Department would lift the
attachment orders imposed by them against
immovable and movable properties of GTC
including debtors and bank accounts and thereafter
not to attach any property including movable
properties of the company during the rehabilitation
period without prior consent of BIFR. The recovery
proceedings against demands raised by Income
Tax Department against disputed liabilities shall
remain suspended and refunds due to company, if
Civil Appeal No. 5038 of 2016
(arising out of SLP (C) No. 26747 of 2012) Page 4 of 27
any, would not be adjusted against such demands.”
4) The said relief was not envisaged under the head reliefs and
concessions asked from CBDT in Para 9(Q) and such direction
was given under the head General Terms and Conditions, without
consent of the appellants required under Section 19(2) of SICA.
Further, in Para 6(t) of the Sanctioned Rehabilitation Scheme
(SS-02), the Board referred to the assumptions of the projected
profitability Statement at Annexure II of the SS-02. The
assumptions of profitability, to be considered part of the
Sanctioned Scheme, included inter alia the following:
(i) The sales would comprise of own manufacture of cigarettes
and cigarettes purchased from convertors.
(ii) That the in-house capacity utilization would be in the range
of 54% to 75%.
Further, as per the projected profitability statement, the projected
sales comprised of cigarettes only, and that as per the projected fund
flow statement, there was to be no decrease in the fixed assets. It was
further laid down in para 10(f) under the head 'General Terms and
Conditions' that “the company would not undertake any major
modernization/diversification program/ capital expenditure except
normal capital expenditure during the period of implementation of the
Civil Appeal No. 5038 of 2016
(arising out of SLP (C) No. 26747 of 2012) Page 5 of 27
rehabilitation scheme without specific prior permission of the MA/BIFR.”
Besides this, Board further directed the Promoters in para 9 (S)(b)
of the Sanctioned Rehabilitation Scheme “to meet any shortfall in the
cash flow projections or any contingency not conceived in the Scheme.
In this regard, promoters may raise moneys by way of development of
industrial estate and sale thereof of surplus land available at Marol,
Mumbai or sale/development of any other surplus assets.”
5) Having regard to the aforesaid provisions in the Scheme with its
imprimatur by the Board, the Revenue could not and did not
resort to any action by way of attachment of movable or
immovable assets of the company.
6) The cut-off date in the Scheme was 31.12.1998 and the
rehabilitation period of eight years was prescribed therein.
However, later on the cut-off date in the Scheme was changed
from 31.12.1998 to 31.03.2003 by the Board and the eight years
period provided for rehabilitation was to be reckoned from
31.03.2003. In this way, the Scheme was to lapse on 31.03.2011.
7) When this Scheme was still in operation, the Revenue filed
petition under Section 22(1) of SICA seeking permission to
recover the outstanding dues of Rs. 426.37 crores which were
Civil Appeal No. 5038 of 2016
(arising out of SLP (C) No. 26747 of 2012) Page 6 of 27
raised after the date of Sanctioned Scheme. On this petition, the
Board passed order dated 29.03.2006 directing the Revenue to
release a sum of Rs. 4.28 crores which was withheld by the
Revenue and further directed the Income Tax Department to
expedite the settlement of the disputed demands. It was also
observed that in the event of crystallization of the disputed
demand of the Revenue and in case of shortfall of funds thereof
for repayment by the company, company/promoters would bring
the requisite amount of interest free unsecured loan and/or would
raise the necessary fund by way of disposal of the company's
surplus assets as envisaged in paragraph S of the SS-02. It also
directed that the company would settle/pay the income tax dues, if
any, which would become payable after sanction/implementation
of SS-02 i.e. w.e.f. 01.04.2003 onwards in the normal course and
neither the Company nor its promoters would be entitled for any
protection under SICA for delay/non-payment of such dues.
8) When the position stood thus, on 29.06.2007 the Company
submitted before the Board that its net-worth became positive on
31.03.2007 and sought de-registration from SICA/Board. The
Board, passed order dated 29.06.2007 holding that since
net-worth of the company had turned positive as on 31.03.2007, it
Civil Appeal No. 5038 of 2016
(arising out of SLP (C) No. 26747 of 2012) Page 7 of 27
has seized to be a sick industrial undertaking within the meaning
of Section 3(1)(O) of SICA and discharged the company from the
purview of SICA. Operative part of the direction in the said order
read as under:
“(i) The SBI is hereby relieved from the
responsibility as the MA.
(ii) The unimplemented provision(s) of the
SS-02 for the unexpired period of the Scheme and
also the unimplemented provisions of the
subsequent order(s) issued by the Board in this
regard, if any, would continue to be implemented by
the concerned agencies and their implementation
would be monitored by the company.
(iii) The 'Special Director', appointed by the
BIFR on the company's Board of Directors (BOD),
if any, would stand discharged with immediate
effect.
(iv) The company would complete necessary
formalities with the 'Registrar of Companies'
(ROC), as may be required.”
9) As per the Revenue, as on 20.01.2010, there were outstanding
dues and income tax amounting to Rs. 761.35 crores and the
demand thereof was sent to the Company for payment and it was
also mentioned that coercive action may be taken to recover the
said amount. Such a demand was made on the premise that the
net-worth of the company had turned positive and it has ceased to
be a sick company. Therefore, having lost the status of a sick
company, it was not entitled to the protection under provisions of
Civil Appeal No. 5038 of 2016
(arising out of SLP (C) No. 26747 of 2012) Page 8 of 27
SICA.
10) Within few days of this demand, the Revenue found from the
reports in print media that the company had sold its Vile Parle
Property in Mumbai for a sum of Rs.591 crores. In order to verify
this sale transaction, a specific survey under Section 133(A) of
the Income Tax Act was conducted from which it was gathered
that the Company had entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) with M/s. Sheth Developers Pvt. Ltd. and
Suraksha Reality Ltd. for developing the said property. This MOU
prescribed that on execution of agreement for development, the
assessee Company would receive a total consideration of
Rs.542.70 crores out of which the assessee Company had
already received advance consideration of Rs.60 crores at the
time of signing the MOU. Further, the company had also entered
into an agreement for development of assessee's land at
Hyderabad for construction of Ashoka Golden Mall and Multiplex.
The company had not passed on the possession of Vile Parle as
development agreement was not signed. Thus, the company
had, by this time, converted almost all the immovable properties
owned by it as business assets into stock-in-trade and almost all
properties were put on sale. The tentative cost of sale of all these
Civil Appeal No. 5038 of 2016
(arising out of SLP (C) No. 26747 of 2012) Page 9 of 27
properties would be between Rs. 700 crores to Rs. 1000 crores
approximately.
11) On coming to know of the aforesaid information, concerned Tax
Recovery Officer of the Revenue demanded tax and penalty of
remaining Assessment Years was also served vide letter dated
12.03.2010. On receiving the said letter dated 12.03.2010, the
Company filed M.A. bearing No. 200/2010 before the Board
seeking stay of any coercive action proposed to be taken by the
Revenue. This application was contested by the Revenue, inter
alia, on the ground that since the company had been discharged
from SICA vide order dated 29.06.2007, the Board had no
jurisdiction left over implementation of the Scheme and the
company could no longer enjoy protection under Section 22(1) of
SICA. On this application, order dated 09.04.2010 was passed by
the Board directing the Revenue not to take any coercive action
against the company. It was also directed that the
unimplemented provisions of SS-02, particularly, paragraph 10-k
thereof, should be implemented by DIT(R).
12) This order of the Board was challenged by the Revenue by filing
appeal before the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial
Reconstruction (hereinafter referred to as the 'AAIFR'). In this
Civil Appeal No. 5038 of 2016
(arising out of SLP (C) No. 26747 of 2012) Page 10 of 27
appeal, interim order dated 03.06.2010 was passed directing both
the parties to maintain status quo. According to the Revenue,
despite the aforesaid order, the Company invited online forward
auction for the land situated in Marol Industrial Area which forced
the Revenue to file MA No.448/2010 before the Appellate
Authority on 24.08.2010. In this application, the Appellate
Authority passed the order suspending the proposed online
e-auction. The appeal was ultimately decided by the Appellate
Authority on 31.01.2011. With other connected appeals, inter
alia, ordering that Income Tax Department could not have initiated
any coercive action for recovery of its dues against the Company
since the unimplemented provisions of the sanctioned
rehabilitation scheme for the unexpired period of the scheme are
still under implementation.
13) This order was challenged by the Revenue by filing the Writ
Petition (C) No. 1875/2011 in the High Court of Delhi. While the
aforesaid writ petition was pending certain other developments
took place. Some dues of Central Excise Authority were also
payable by the company. The Company had written few letters to
the Central Excise Authorities, in the year 2010, stating that their
manufacturing operation has become unviable because of fixed
Civil Appeal No. 5038 of 2016
(arising out of SLP (C) No. 26747 of 2012) Page 11 of 27
overheads and consequently a decision was taken to restructure
business by entering into reality business. The company also had
filed Misc. Application No. 114/2011 with a prayer to extend the
duration of rehabilitation period (originally fixed for eight years) by
another one year. Due to the delay caused in implementation of
the said Scheme because of the coercive measures taken against
the company by the Revenue this application was decided by the
Board on 31.03.2011. The Board by a detailed order recorded a
specific finding, based on material produced before it, that the Tax
Departments could not be held responsible for any delay in the
implementation of the Scheme. It also held that once the
Company had been discharged under SICA on its net-worth
turning positive in the year 2007, provisions of Section 18(5) were
not applicable and, therefore, any major modification by way of
extension of time, was not permissible.
14) Against the aforesaid order of the Board, the Company filed an
appeal before the Appellate Authority. This appeal was, however,
dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide orders dated
29/30.06.2011 holding that the Company was not entitled to get
the period of rehabilitation scheme extended. It specifically
affirmed the finding of the Board that the Company had violated
Civil Appeal No. 5038 of 2016
(arising out of SLP (C) No. 26747 of 2012) Page 12 of 27
the sanctioned scheme and that no modification of the Scheme
was possible.
15) The aforesaid order of the Board was by majority of 2:1. Whereas
two members were of the opinion that the order of the Board did
not require any interference and gave their detailed reasoning in
support of the said view, the Chairman of the Board, who was
retiring on the same day, observed that he had no time to write a
detailed order but expressed his view that this case should be
remanded back to the Board for an enquiry to be conducted
regarding the violation of clause 10(f)(b) of the Sanctioned
Scheme by the Company entering into an agreement for
transfer/development of their property at Ville Parle. According to
the Chairman, as per para 9(5)(b) of the sanctioned Scheme,
there was a provision for sale or development of any other surplus
asset and the plea of the Company regarding extension of time
needed a detailed enquiry by the Board. Notwithstanding these
observations of the Chairman, who was the dissenting member,
majority view was that the appeal was bereft of any merit and the
order of the Board did not suffer from any legal error and on this
basis majority had dismissed the appeal. Obviously the effect
was that the appeal of the Company stood dismissed.
Civil Appeal No. 5038 of 2016
(arising out of SLP (C) No. 26747 of 2012) Page 13 of 27
16) Knowing the aforesaid consequence fully well and conscious of
the same viz. the decision of the Appellate Authority had gone
against it, the Company challenged the order of the Appellate
Authority by filing Writ Petition No. 4614 of 2011. This writ
petition was, however, dismissed as 'withdrawn' on 05.07.2011
and the High Court gave two months' time for the clearance of the
manufactured stock of goods and payment of excise duty on
those goods. The order was silent about income tax dues. The
reason for which withdrawal was sought is contained in the
following portion of the said order of the High Court.
“We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
Learned senior counsel for the petitioner, on
instructions, states that he would like to withdraw
the writ petition and the application to pursue the
course suggested by the majority view of the
AAIFR vide order dated 29.06.2001 for seeking
modification of the Scheme by approaching the
BIFR.”
With the withdrawal of the writ petition, order of the Board,
as affirmed by the Appellate Authority, attained finality.
17) As noticed above, at that time, Writ Petition No. 1875 of 2011 filed
by the Revenue was pending in the High Court. This petition was
filed against the order of the Appellate Authority restraining the
Revenue from taking coercive action against the Company for
recovery of its dues on the ground that unimplemented provision
Civil Appeal No. 5038 of 2016
(arising out of SLP (C) No. 26747 of 2012) Page 14 of 27
of the Sanctioned Rehabilitation Scheme for the unexpired period
of the Scheme was still under implementation. This reason was
no more in existence in view of the aforesaid orders passed by
the Board as well as Appellate Authority refusing to give extension
to the Company in respect of the sanctioned Scheme. The
purport and effect of those orders, clearly, was that the Scheme
had come to an end and was no more in operation. The
Revenue, thus, filed detailed rejoinder affidavit in Writ Petition No.
1875 of 2011 bringing the aforesaid development on record in the
said writ petition.
18) Notwithstanding the aforesaid background, in the writ petition
preferred by the Revenue, High Court has passed impugned
orders dated 16.08.2011 dismissing the writ petition with the
observations that the appropriate remedy for the petitioner is to
move the Board for lifting of the bar under Section 22 of SICA. It
is a very brief order and the entire reasoning on which the said
order is based can be found in the following discussion by the
High Court.
“The violation alleged by the petitioners is broadly
that respondent no. 1 has been indulging in sale of
assets without defraying the income tax liabilities in
consonance with paragraph 9S(b) of the
sanctioned scheme. It is the learned counsel's say
that the Department had not taken, in past,
Civil Appeal No. 5038 of 2016
(arising out of SLP (C) No. 26747 of 2012) Page 15 of 27
coercive action for recovery of huge amounts of
income tax dues in accordance with the provisions
of paragraph 10(k) of the sanctioned scheme. It is
submitted that this course of action of sale of
assets to satisfy the scaled down claim of the
petitioners in terms of the scheme is not
permissible. It is the say of the Department that
since it is a scheme of revival, respondent no. 1
ought not be allowed to sell the assets without
paying the dues to the Department.
In our considered view, the impugned orders
cannot be faulted, which are, predicated on the
factual position at that stage of time. If the
grievance is, as is now sought to be urged before
us; the appropriate remedy for the petitioner is to
move the BIFR for lifting of the bar under Section
22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special
Provisions) Act, 1985 by articulating before the said
forum the factum of alleged violation of the
sanctioned scheme.
19) What follows from the above is that the High Court was convinced
by the reason that the question as to whether the Company had
indulged in sale of assets unauthorisedly and in violation of para
9(5)(b) which is yet to be taken by the Board. The High Court
also proceeded on a palpably wrong presumption that the
sanctioned Scheme was still under operation and, therefore, bar
under Section 22 of the SICA applied. For this reason, it directed
that the only remedy left for the Revenue was to approach the
Board for lifting of the bar under Section 22 of the SICA. From
the facts and events noted above, this premise and assumptions
are clearly erroneous and contrary to record.
Civil Appeal No. 5038 of 2016
(arising out of SLP (C) No. 26747 of 2012) Page 16 of 27
20) In the first instance, it is to be seen that the Scheme had already
expired on 31.03.2011. Application for extension of the Scheme
was filed before the Board which was dismissed. The reason
given by the Company seeking extension was that the
implementation of the Scheme was delayed because of the
coercive tactics which the Revenue had adopted against the
Company. This claim was found to be hollow and incorrect. The
Appellate Authority had upheld this order of the Board, albeit by a
majority of 2:1. Thus, no Scheme was in operation. Another
significant aspect which is to be kept in mind is that way back in
the year 2007, the net worth of the Company had turned positive
and it was no more a sick Company. Thus, the Revenue had right
to recover arrears of income tax after 2007 and in any case after
31.03.2011 when the Scheme expired.
21) It may be pertinent to mention at this stage that the Company has
approached the Board, after withdrawal of its Writ Petition No.
4614 of 2011 on the ground that while withdrawing this petition
the High Court had permitted the Company to seek recourse to
the Board in view of the observations of the majority opinion of the
Appellate Authority. Even this is erroneous.
Civil Appeal No. 5038 of 2016
(arising out of SLP (C) No. 26747 of 2012) Page 17 of 27
22) The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal on merits. In the
course of discussion on various aspects and arguments that were
raised before the Appellate Authority, the Appellate Authority
noted that the Company had taken steps to close a unit which
was rehabilitated under the Sanctioned Scheme and to sell the
property thereof without obtaining the prior approval of the Board.
It further observed that when those steps were taken, jurisdiction
of the Board over the Company continued under Section 18(9)
and Section 18(12) of SICA. In the opinion of the Appellate
Authority, since the Company had availed itself of and was
continuously availing the beneficial measures of SS-02, which
included rehabilitation measures for the Mumbai unit, it was
obligatory on the part of the Company to seek and obtain the prior
permission of the Board to close the Mumbai unit, shift its plant
and machinery to the Vadodara and engage in reality business.
Thus, while rejecting the argument of the Company that there was
no violation of the Scheme in dismantling the Ville Parle Unit and
selling its land and building, the Appellate Authority took the view
that it had altered the essential ingredients of the SS-02 as a
result of which that Scheme stood mutilated and, therefore,
seeking extension of such Scheme was untenable. While
discussing this aspect, the Appellate Authority, repelling the
Civil Appeal No. 5038 of 2016
(arising out of SLP (C) No. 26747 of 2012) Page 18 of 27
argument, also remarked as under:
“12. The only option available to the company was
to seek modification of the scheme under Section
18(5) of SICA which had to be considered through
appropriate procedure prescribed under SICA for
seeking fresh commitments from the concerned
parties, as required.”
By these remarks the Appellate Authority only pointed out
the breach committed by the company in not taking prior
permission and nowhere permitted the company to resort to the
same even now as that opportunity was already lost.
23) It is the aforesaid remarks, advantage whereof was taken by the
th
Company when orders dated 5 July, 2011 were passed in Writ
Petition No. 4614 of 2011. Though, the petition was withdrawn,
the counsel for the Company made the statement that the
Company would like to pursue the course 'suggested' by the
th
majority view of the Appellate Authority in its order dated 29
June, 2001 for seeking modification of the Scheme by
approaching the Board. No such suggestion or permission at all
was given. It is stated at the cost of repetition that the aforesaid
observations were made while dealing with the particular
argument of the Company. That did not mean that the aforesaid
observations gave the Company any liberty to approach the
Board even at this juncture. The filing of such application by the
Civil Appeal No. 5038 of 2016
(arising out of SLP (C) No. 26747 of 2012) Page 19 of 27
Company before the Board seeking modification is, therefore,
totally untenable move on the part of the Company. Such an
application is not maintainable in law.
24) When the matter is considered in this hue, keeping in mind the
aforesaid backdrop, the impugned order passed by the High
Court in the writ petition that was preferred by the Revenue, is
manifestly wrong and unsustainable. For the reasons stated
above, we are of the view that the Sanctioned Scheme (SS-02)
st
has outlived its life which came to an end on 31 March, 2011.
the Revenue is, thus, entitled to recover its dues.
25) The next question is about the quantum of dues that the Revenue
has to recover from the Company.
26) We may mention at this stage that during the course of
arguments, learned senior counsel appearing for the Company
stated that the Company was ready to settle the dues of the
Revenue and for this purpose it was agreeable for the sale of its
Ville Parle land under the directions of this Court. It was also
agreed that the said sale may be carried out by the monitoring
agency, i.e., Canara Bank. The learned senior counsel, however,
vehemently questioned the amount claimed by the Revenue in
Civil Appeal No. 5038 of 2016
(arising out of SLP (C) No. 26747 of 2012) Page 20 of 27
this behalf as it was submitted that the demand of Rs. 761.35
crores on account of income tax dues as made by the Revenue
was not correct. On this aspect both the sides made their
detailed submissions.
27) By affidavit dated 02.05.2016 filed by Ms. Anita Sinha, Additional
Director General (Recovery) C.B.D.T., following dues are claimed:
“a. Principal amount of tax Rs.81.66 crores
b. Principal amount of Penalties Rs.83.29 crores
c. Interest u/s. 220(2) till Rs.487.50 crores
30.04.2016
Total Rs.652.45 crores”
28) This is the revised figure given on 02.05.2016. As pointed out
above, in the special leave petition filed by the Revenue, a
demand for sum of Rs. 761.35 crores was made.
29) On the other hand, it is the say of the Company that the demands
were reduced at an amount of Rs. 52.53 crores by April, 2012
itself. It was submitted that in the reply filed by the Revenue to
I.A. 6 of 2014 filed by the Company, the latest position of tax
demand and status of appeals was mentioned. The Revenue had
stated the outstanding of Rs. 635.96 crores (principal amount of
tax and penalty Rs. 164.96 crores + interest upto June, 2015 @
471.01 crores). Referring to the details in the said chart, as per
which the demand was calculated by the Revenue in respect of
different Assessment Years, an endeavour was made by the
Civil Appeal No. 5038 of 2016
(arising out of SLP (C) No. 26747 of 2012) Page 21 of 27
learned senior counsel for the Company to show that even those
demands were included where the Company had succeeded and
the appeals filed by the Department were pending before the
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. It was, however, clarified by Mr.
Maninder Singh, learned ASG appearing for the Revenue that no
doubt appeals have been filed by the Revenue which are pending
before the ITAT, but the disputed amount has not been included
and only that amount which was payable as per the order of CIT
(Appeal), is included.
30) Another important submission, which needs consideration,
advanced by Mr. Sundaram, learned senior counsel appearing for
the Company was that in the Scheme which was approved by the
Board, Income Tax Department had agreed to waive interest and
penalty and, therefore, it was not permissible for the Department
to include the interest and penalty. The particular clause in the
Scheme as sanctioned by the Board reads as under:
“Q. Central Government
CBDT/Income Tax
…......
(b) to consider waiving interest and penalty, if any
imposed and not to levy such interest and penalties
during the rehabilitation period.”
31) It was argued that the words 'to consider' are to be treated as
mandate. It was submitted that the expression 'to consider' in
Civil Appeal No. 5038 of 2016
(arising out of SLP (C) No. 26747 of 2012) Page 22 of 27
similar Schemes approved by the Board has been interpreted by
various Division Benches of High Courts to mean that the relief
granted is mandatory and not merely recommendatory.
Reference was made to the judgment of Delhi High Court in
Union of India v. CIMMCO Ltd. & Ors. , bearing W.P.(C) No. 626
of 2014 and that of Madras High Court in Commissioner Income
Tax-I, Chennai v. M/s. Tube Investments of India Ltd.-I,
Chennai , bearing Tax Case (Appeal) Nos. 519 and 521 of 2005.
32) We are not deciding this issue in the present appeal and permit
the parties to approach the Board seeking clarification as to what
was meant by the words 'to consider' i.e., whether the Board
meant that it was mandatory on the part of the Revenue to waive
the interest and penalty or it was only recommendatory and,
therefore, it was upto to the Department to agree or not to agree
to the said request. The jurisdiction of the Board, whenever such
application is filed, would be limited to the aforesaid aspect alone
and the Board shall decide the issue within the period of two
months. Otherwise, we make it clear that as the Scheme has
lapsed no further proceedings of any nature are to be entertained
by the Board including the application for modification filed by the
Company and pending before the Board.
Civil Appeal No. 5038 of 2016
(arising out of SLP (C) No. 26747 of 2012) Page 23 of 27
33) The Income Tax Department shall be entitled to take steps for
attachment of the properties of the Company, including Ville Parle
land as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act and shall be
entitled to sell the same. If there are any secured creditors in
respect of these properties, such attachment and sale shall be
subject to the rights of those creditors. Out of the proceeds, the
Principal amount of tax due to the Income Tax Department and
even the admitted excise dues shall be paid to the Revenue.
Insofar as payment of interest and penalty is concerned, that
would be dependent upon the decision which the Board would
give.
34) Before parting with, we may point out that M/s. Sheth Developers
Private Limited and Suraksha Realty Limited have filed
applications to intervene in the matter as they submit that in
respect of Ville Parle Land, MOU was entered into by the
Company with them. However, once it is found that such an
agreement was in violation of the Scheme, the arrangement with
the aforesaid interveners entered into by the Company loses its
legal force and no right would accrue to these interveners on the
basis of the said agreements. We, thus, dismiss the plea raised
by the intervener.
Civil Appeal No. 5038 of 2016
(arising out of SLP (C) No. 26747 of 2012) Page 24 of 27
35) Appeal stands allowed and disposed of on the terms indicated
above.
................................................J.
(A.K. SIKRI)
................................................J.
(R. K. AGRAWAL)
NEW DELHI;
MAY 12, 2016.
Civil Appeal No. 5038 of 2016
(arising out of SLP (C) No. 26747 of 2012) Page 25 of 27
(REVISED)
ITEM NO.1B COURT NO.12 SECTION IIIA
(For judgment)
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No. 5038 of 2016
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 26747 of 2012)
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated
16/08/2011 in WP No. 1875/2011 passed by the High Court Of
Delhi At New Delhi)
DIRECTOR GENERAL OF I.T.(ADMN.) & ANR. ... Appellants
VERSUS
M/S. GTC INDUSTRIES LTD.& ANR. ... Respondents
Date : 12/05/2016
This matter was called on for pronouncement of judgment
today.
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Maninder Singh, ASG.
Mr. Prabhas Bajaj, Adv.
Mr. S. A. Haseeb, Adv.
Ms. Sadhna Sandhu, Adv.
Mr. Nalin Kohli, Adv.
Mr. Rohan Jaitley, Adv.
Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Rudreshwar Singh, Adv.
Mr. Gopal Jha, Adv.
Mr. Gautam Singh, Adv.
Mr. Kaushik Poddar, Adv.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. K. Sikri pronounced the
judgment of the Bench comprising His Lordship and
Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. K. Agrawal.
Leave granted.
The appeal stands allowed in terms of the signed
reportable judgment.
In view thereof, pending applications stand
disposed of.
(Nidhi Ahuja) (Tapan Kr. Chakraborty)
Court Master Court Master
[Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file.]
Civil Appeal No. 5038 of 2016
(arising out of SLP (C) No. 26747 of 2012) Page 26 of 27
ITEM NO.1B COURT NO.12 SECTION IIIA
(For judgment)
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No. 5038 of 2016
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 26747 of 2012)
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated
16/08/2011 in WP No. 1875/2011 passed by the High Court Of
Delhi At New Delhi)
DIRECTOR GENERAL OF I.T.(ADMN.) & ANR. ... Appellants
VERSUS
M/S. GTC INDUSTRIES LTD.& ANR. ... Respondents
Date : 12/05/2016
This matter was called on for pronouncement of judgment
today.
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Maninder Singh, ASG.
Mr. Prabhas Bajaj, Adv.
Mr. S. A. Haseeb, Adv.
Ms. Sadhna Sandhu, Adv.
Mr. Nalin Kohli, Adv.
Mr. Rohan Jaitley, Adv.
Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Rudreshwar Singh, Adv.
Mr. Gopal Jha, Adv.
Mr. Gautam Singh, Adv.
Mr. Kaushik Poddar, Adv.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. K. Sikri pronounced the
judgment of the Bench comprising His Lordship and
Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. K. Agrawal.
Leave granted.
The appeal stands allowed in terms of the signed
reportable judgment.
(Nidhi Ahuja) (Tapan Kr. Chakraborty)
Court Master Court Master
[Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file.]
Civil Appeal No. 5038 of 2016
(arising out of SLP (C) No. 26747 of 2012) Page 27 of 27