Click Here For Best Books On Taxation & Law. Upto 60% Off On Select Titles. Free Shipping & Pay On Delivery!
 

Click Here To Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements

Home › All Judgements › CCE vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation (Supreme Court)

CCE vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation (Supreme Court)

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 24, 2010 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE:
CITATION:

Click here to download the judgement (cod_supreme_court.pdf)

Supreme Court doubts law requiring PSUs to obtain COD approval; directs review

In ONGC vs. CCE 104 CTR (SC) 31, the Supreme Court directed the Central Government to set up a ‘Committee on Disputes’ to monitor disputes between the Government and Public Sector Enterprises and give clearance for litigation. It was held the no litigation could be proceeded with in the absence of COD approval. This was followed in ONGC vs. CIDCO (2007) 7 SCC 39 and it was held that even disputes between PSUs and State Governments would require COD approval. HELD doubting the correctness of this law and referring the matter to a larger bench for reconsideration:

“In our experience, the working of the COD has failed. Numerous difficulties are experienced by the COD which are expressed in the letter of the Cabinet Secretary, dated 9th March, 2010. Apart from the said letter, we find in numerous matters concerning public sector companies that different views are expressed by COD which results not only in delay in filing of matters but also results into further litigation.

In the circumstances, we find merit in the submission advanced before us by learned Attorney General that time has come to revisit the orders passed by the three Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Oil & Natural Gas Commission vs. Collector of Central Excise (supra)”.

Note: In Shivshahi Punarvasan Prakalp vs. UOI (Bombay High Court) it was held that state govt undertakings do not require COD approval for income-tax matters. See Also: Gujarat Mineral Development Corp vs. ITAT 25 DTR 241 (Guj)

Related Judgements

  1. DCIT vs. Gujarat Alkalies (Supreme Court) 

    Commitment charges paid in respect of borrowed moneys are allowable as a deduction u/s 37(1) of the Act.
  2. CIT vs. HCL Comnet (Supreme Court) 

    Provision for bad and doubtful debts cannot be added to the “book profits” for purposes of section 115JA because they merely represent the dimunition in the value of an asset and are not a provision for an unascertained liability.
    Read more ›
  3. CIT vs. ITI Ltd (Supreme Court) 

    Where the assessee-employer allowed the employees the benefit of deduction under section 10 (5) of the Act without collecting evidence to show that its employees had actually utilized the amounts paid towards Leave Travel Concessions/Conveyance Allowance and the question arose whether the employer could be said to have wrongly…
  4. CIT vs. Sri Mangayarkarasi Mills (Supreme Court) 

    Replacement expenditure is neither “current repairs” nor “revenue” The assessee incurred expenditure on replacement of machinery in a textile mill and claimed the same as revenue expenditure on the ground that it was merely for replacement of spare parts in … CIT vs. Sri Mangayarkarasi Mills (Supreme Court)…
  5. ITO vs. Arihant Tiles & Marbles (Supreme Court) 

    The word “production” is wider in its scope than the word “manufacture”. It means manufacture plus something in addition thereto. This ground reality is now noted in s. 2(29BA) inserted by Finance Act, 2009 w.e.f 1.4.2009. In Lucky Minmat 245 ITR 830 (SC), it was held that mere mining…