2015-VIL-45-SC-DT

Equivalent Citation: [2015] 373 ITR 528 (SC), 2015 (12) SCC 665

Supreme Court of India

Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).27873/2010, C.A. No. 2429/2015 & Others

Date: 25.03.2015

UNION OF INDIA

Vs

STAR TELEVISION NEWS LIMITED

For the Appellant : Mr.Mukul Rohatgi, AG

BENCH

A.k. Sikri And Rohinton Fali Nariman JJ.

JUDGMENT

Delay condoned.

In all these special leave petitions filed by the Union of India, the correctness of judgment dated 07.08.2009 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 245HA(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as amended by Finance Act, 2007 was challenged. 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 petitions as the High Court was of the opinion that it was possible to read down the provisions of Section 245HA(1)(iv) in particular to avoid holding the provisions as unconstitutional. The conclusion so arrived at is summed up in paragraph 54 of the impugned judgment, which reads as under:

"54. From the above discussion having arrived at a conclusion that fixing the cutoff date as 31st March, 2008 was arbitrary the provisions of Section 245HA(1)(iv) to that extent will be also arbitrary. We have also held that it is possible to read down the provisions of Section 245HA(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 245HA(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 245C. Consequently only such proceedings would abate under Section 245HA(1)(iv).

Considering the above, the Settlement Commissioner 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 No.1 if desirous of early disposal of the pending applications, to consider the appointment of more Benches of the Settlement Commission, more so as the Benches where there is heavy pendency like Delhi and Mumbai."

We are of the opinion that it is a well-considered judgment of the High Court and does not call for any interference.

All these special leave petitions are accordingly dismissed.

 

DISCLAIMER: Though all efforts have been made to reproduce the order accurately and correctly however the access, usage and circulation is subject to the condition that VATinfoline Multimedia is not responsible/liable for any loss or damage caused to anyone due to any mistake/error/omissions.