Union Of India v. Star Television News Limited ., Supreme Court Of India, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

Slps (C) No. 27873 Of 2010 With 19956, 19968-70, 19972-79, 19981-20000, 20002-04, 24005-06, 25057, 25551-55, 26856-62, 28174-75, 28177-82, 28184-86, 30198-201, 30203-204, 30206, 30209-10, 32538-39, 32541-49, 32551-52, 32554-56 Of 2010, 2146-53, 3705, 4449, 4458-84, 4486-95, 5064, 10907, 10909, 10911, 10915, 10918-19 Of 2011, 35457-626 Of 2012, (Cc No. 12507 Of 2013), 14801-30, 18010-20, 18064-74, 20727-29, 20732-38, 20740, 20742-43, 20748-64, 20766-73, 20775-77, 20781-99, 20804-805, 20808, 20810, 20813, 20815-19, 20821, 20823, 22510-14, 23183-86, 25045, 25135-36, 27146-51, 28704, 31227, 31662, 32335-40, 33916-39, 37033-37 Of 2013, 1828-31, 1840, 2715, 3446-49, 4573-76, 5348, 5996-98, 8185, 9204, 9884, 11122, 11765-66, 17094-95, 17124, 18943-48, 19238, 19302, 22488-89, 22491, 24159-61 Of 2014, 4700, 4701, 5799-801, 8916, 8920, 8927, Cas Nos. 2428-30, 2880 Of 2015, Civil Appeals No. 2429 Of 2015 With Nos. 2428, 2430 And 2880 Of 2015

Disposition

dismissed

Advocates

Mukul Rohatgi, Attorney General and P.S Narasimha, Additional Solicitor General (D.L Chidananda, S.A Haseeb, Kavin Gulati, Ms Diksha Rai, Ajay Sharma, Ms Gargi Khanna, Pritesh Kapur, Parvesh Thakur, B.V Balaram Das and Ms Anil Katiyar, Advocates) for the Petitioner;
Porus F. Kaka, Senior Advocate [Venkita Subramoniam T.R, Vikas Srivastava, J.P Singh, Dinesh Chawla, Harish K., Parag M., A. Agnihotri, Shivaji M. Jadhav, Kamal Mohan Gupta, S.C Tiwari, Jatin Zaveri, Neel Kamal Mishra, Alok Yadav, Somnath Shukla, Praveen Kumar, Rashmikumar Manilal Vithlani, Vimal Chandra S. Dave, Ms Neelam Kalsi, Arun K. Sinha, Aarohi Bhalla, P. Chetan, Ms Sujata Kurdukar, Surya Kant, Pradeep Kr. Yadav, S.R Wadhwa, Kaushal Yadav, Sumit Goel, Ms Anubha Gupta (for M/s Parekh & Co.), Anis Ahmed Khan, Ms Meenakshi Midha, Pranab Kr. Mullick, Ms Arna Das, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, M.C Dhingra, Siddharth Mittal, Anupam Yadav, S.K Sabharwal, Ankur S. Kulkarni, S. Bindlish, Anand Srivastava, Ms Shweta S. Parihar (for M/s Lex Regis Law Offices), Y. Raja Gopala Rao, Ms Y. Vismai Rao, Hitendra Nath Rath, P. Sudheer Kr. Reddy, Sanjeev Malhotra, Ms Sonia Mathur, Rajiv K. Garg, Vineet Garg, Dr Kailash Chand, R.K Kapoor, Ms S. Rama, Ms Shweta Kapoor, Anis Ahmed Khan, Pradeep Kr. Yadav, P. Jitendra Kalkan, Pranesh, Sanjeev Malhotra, Dipesh Sinha, Amit Sharma, Anupam Lal Das, Ms Arna Das, Gaurav Dhingra, Rajat Navet, Pradeep Kr. Bakshi, Kushagra Pandit, Ranjan Kumar, Rajeev Kumar, Ms Sharddha and Ms Kavita Jha, Advocates] for the Respondent.

Judges

Justice R.F. Nariman
Justice Arjan Kumar Sikri

Acts

Article 14
Sections 245-HA(1)(iv) and 245-HA(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961
Finance Act, 2007

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The Supreme Court disposed of multiple proceedings initiated by the Union of India, comprising (i) special leave petitions (and resulting appeals) challenging a Bombay High Court judgment dated 7-8-2009 (reported as 2009 SCC OnLine Bom 2162, (2009) 317 ITR 66), and (ii) civil appeals (CAs Nos. 2428-30 of 2015 and No. 2880 of 2015) challenging Allahabad High Court judgments dated 16-9-2014 (Writ Tax No. 1761 of 2008) and 23-9-2014 (Writ Tax No. 1752 of 2008).

In the underlying writ petitions before both High Courts, various assessees had challenged the constitutional validity of Sections 245-HA(1)(iv) and 245-HA(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as amended by the Finance Act, 2007. The Supreme Court condoned delay in filing and then considered whether any interference was warranted with the High Court decisions.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether Sections 245-HA(1)(iv) and 245-HA(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (as amended by the Finance Act, 2007) were constitutionally valid in light of Article 14 challenges raised by assessees.
Whether, instead of striking down Section 245-HA(1)(iv), it could be judicially “read down” so that abatement would occur only when delay in disposal was attributable to the applicant under Section 245-C.
Whether the Supreme Court should interfere with the Bombay High Court and Allahabad High Court approaches that found arbitrariness (including regarding a cut-off date of 31-3-2008) but preserved the provisions through reading down.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Star Television News Ltd. case (2009 SCC OnLine Bom 2162, (2009) 317 ITR 66)	Reading down Section 245-HA(1)(iv) to avoid unconstitutionality; holding that the cut-off date of 31-3-2008 was arbitrary to the stated extent; limiting “abatement” to situations where delay is attributable to the applicant under Section 245-C; requiring the Settlement Commission to assess attribution of delay.	The Supreme Court treated the Bombay High Court’s judgment as “well-considered” and found no reason to interfere. The Allahabad High Court’s conclusion (as reproduced) expressly adopted the same reading-down approach by reference to the Star Television News Ltd. case.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Supreme Court noted that both the Bombay High Court and the Allahabad High Court had delivered detailed judgments addressing the constitutional challenge to Sections 245-HA(1)(iv) and 245-HA(3). The High Courts found the provisions “violative of Article 14, etc.” but did not invalidate them because they considered it possible to read down Section 245-HA(1)(iv) to avoid a declaration of unconstitutionality.

The Supreme Court reproduced (and, in the Allahabad matter, again referred to) the essence of the Bombay High Court’s conclusion (para 57), which:

treated the fixing of the cut-off date 31-3-2008 as arbitrary “to that extent”;
adopted reading down as a remedial technique “in order to avoid holding the provisions as unconstitutional”;
construed Section 245-HA(1)(iv) to mean that proceedings would abate only where non-disposal of the settlement application was due to reasons attributable to the applicant who filed under Section 245-C;
required the Settlement Commission to decide whether delay was attributable to the applicant and, if not, to proceed with the application “as if not abated”;
observed that if Respondent 1 desired early disposal, it could consider appointing more Benches of the Settlement Commission, especially at high-pendency Benches such as Delhi and Mumbai.

On this basis, the Supreme Court concluded that the High Court judgments were “well-considered” and that they did not call for interference.

Holding and Implications

DISMISSED: The Supreme Court dismissed all the special leave petitions/appeals concerning the Bombay High Court judgment and also dismissed all the civil appeals concerning the Allahabad High Court judgments (with delay condoned in both sets).

The direct effect is that the High Courts’ reading-down construction of Section 245-HA(1)(iv) stands: abatement is confined to cases where the delay in disposal is attributable to the applicant, and the Settlement Commission must examine attribution of delay and proceed as if not abated where delay is not attributable to the applicant. The order does not indicate any broader implications beyond affirming the High Courts’ approach, and it does not state that any new precedent was set by the Supreme Court.

Show full summary ...

Union Of India v. Star Television News Limited .

Order

1. Delay condoned. In all these special leave petitions filed by the Union of India, the correctness of judgment dated 7-8-2009 2009 SCC OnLine Bom 2162, (2009) 317 ITR 66 rendered by the Bombay High Court in a batch of writ petitions is questioned. In those writ petitions filed by various assessees, the validity of Sections 245-HA(1)(iv) and 245-HA(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as amended by the Finance Act, 2007 was challenged.

2. The High Court, by a detailed judgment, found the aforesaid provisions to be violative of Article 14, etc. but at the same time, it did not invalidate these provisions as the High Court was of the opinion that it was possible to read down the provisions of Section 245-HA(1)(iv) in particular to avoid holding the provisions as unconstitutional.

3. The conclusion so arrived at is summed up in para 57 of the impugned judgment 2009 SCC OnLine Bom 2162, (2009) 317 ITR 66, which reads as under:

“57. … From the above discussion having arrived at a conclusion that fixing the cut-off date as 31-3-2008 was arbitrary the provisions of Section 245-HA(1)(iv) to that extent will be also arbitrary. We have also held that it is possible to read down the provisions of Section 245-HA(1)(iv) in the manner set out earlier. This recourse has been taken in order to avoid holding the provisions as unconstitutional. Having so read, we would have to read Section 245-HA(1)(iv) to mean that in the event the application could not be disposed of for any reasons attributable on the part of the applicant who has made an application under Section 245-C. Consequently only such proceedings would abate under Section 245-HA(1)(iv). Considering the above, the Settlement Commission has to consider whether the proceedings had been delayed on account of any reasons attributable on the part of the applicant. If it comes to the conclusion that it was not so, then to proceed with the application as if not abated. Respondent 1 if desirous of early disposal of the pending applications, to consider the appointment of more Benches of the Settlement Commission, more so at the Benches where there is heavy pendency like Delhi and Mumbai.”

4. We are of the opinion that it is a well-considered judgment 2009 SCC OnLine Bom 2162, (2009) 317 ITR 66 of the High Court and does not call for any interference. All these special leave petitions and the appeals are accordingly dismissed.

CAs Nos. 2428-30 of 2015 and No. 2880 of 2015

5. Delay condoned. In all these appeals filed by the Union of India, the correctness of judgments dated 16-9-2014 Writ Tax No. 1761 of 2008 and 23-9-2014 Writ Tax No. 1752 of 2008 rendered by the Allahabad High Court in a batch of writ petitions is questioned. In those writ petitions filed by various assessees, the validity of Sections 245-HA(1)(iv) and 245-HA(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as amended by the Finance Act, 2007 was challenged.

6. The High Court, by a detailed judgment Writ Tax No. 785 of 2008, found the aforesaid provisions to be violative of Article 14, etc. but at the same time, it did not invalidate these petitions as the High Court was of the opinion that it was possible to read down the provisions of Section 245-HA(1)(iv) in particular to avoid holding the provisions as unconstitutional.

7. The conclusion so arrived at is summed up in para 7 of the impugned judgment Writ Tax No. 785 of 2008, which reads as under:

“7. … ‘57. … From the above discussion having arrived at a conclusion that fixing the cut-off date as 31-3-2008 was arbitrary the provisions of Section 245-HA(1)(iv) to that extent will be also arbitrary. We have also held that it is possible to read down the provisions of Section 245-HA(1)(iv) in the manner set out earlier. This recourse has been taken in order to avoid holding the provisions as unconstitutional. Having so read, we would have to read Section 245-HA(1)(iv) to mean that in the event the application could not be disposed of for any reasons attributable on the part of the applicant who has made an application under Section 245-C. Consequently only such proceedings would abate under Section 245-HA(1)(iv). Considering the above, the Settlement Commission has to consider whether the proceedings had been delayed on account of any reasons attributable on the part of the applicant. If it comes to the conclusion that it was not so, then to proceed with the application as if not abated. Respondent 1 if desirous of early disposal of the pending applications, to consider the appointment of more Benches of the Settlement Commission, more so at the Benches where there is heavy pendency like Delhi and Mumbai.’ (Star Television News Ltd. case 2009 SCC OnLine Bom 2162, (2009) 317 ITR 66, SCC OnLine Bom)”

8. We are of the opinion that it is a well-considered judgment Writ Tax No. 785 of 2008 of the High Court and does not call for any interference. All these appeals are accordingly dismissed.

Court Masters

Union Of India v. Star Television News Limited .

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Union Of India v. Star Television News Limited .

Comments