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 › PCIT vs. Monnet Ispat And Energy Ltd (Supreme Court)

PCIT vs. Monnet Ispat And Energy Ltd (Supreme Court)

Posted on by editor — 1 Comment ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE: ,
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: August 10, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 23, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to download the file in pdf format
CITATION:
Income-tax dues, being in the nature of Crown debts, do not take precedence even over secured creditors, who are private persons. Given s. 238 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the Code will override anything inconsistent contained in any other enactment, including the Income-tax Act

ITEM NO.60 COURT NO.9 SECTION XIV

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 6483/2018

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 04-09-2017

in ITA No. 543/2017 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi)

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

MONNET ISPAT AND ENERGY LTD. Respondent(s)

WITH

SLP(C) No. 6487/2018 (XIV)

SLP(C) No. 6488/2018 (XIV)
(FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ON IA
31154/2018)

SLP(C) No. 6590/2018 (XIV)

Diary No(s). 4692/2018 (XIV)
(FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 32173/2018)

Diary No(s). 4781/2018 (XIV)
(FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 34964/2018
FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING ON IA 34965/2018)

SLP(C) No. 6490/2018 (XIV)

SLP(C) No. 8382/2018 (XIV)

Diary No(s). 5210/2018 (XIV)
(FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 34695/2018)

Diary No(s). 6122/2018 (XIV)
(FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 33578/2018)

SLP(C) No. 6492/2018 (XIV)

SLP(C) No. 6489/2018 (XIV)
(FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ON IA
Signature Not Verified

30223/2018)
Digitally signed by R
NATARAJAN
Date: 2018.08.13
16:46:07 IST
Reason:

SLP(C) No. 6493/2018 (XIV)

SLP(C) No. 8187/2018 (XIV)
SLP(C) No. 8380/2018 (XIV)
2

Diary No(s). 7050/2018 (XIV)
(FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 34726/2018)

SLP(C) No. 8188/2018 (XIV)

SLP(C) No. 8383/2018 (XIV)

Diary No(s). 7319/2018 (XIV)
(FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 33741/2018)

SLP(C) No. 8381/2018 (XIV)

SLP(C) No. 8189/2018 (XIV)

Date : 10-08-2018 These petitions were called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE INDU MALHOTRA

For Petitioner(s) Mr. A.N.S. Nadkarni, ASG
Mr. K.S. Radhakrishnan, Sr. Adv.
Mr. S.A. Haseeb, Adv.
Mr. Arijit Prasad, Adv.
Mrs. Anil Katiyar, AOR

For Respondent(s) Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv.
Mr. Ankur Saigal, Adv.
Mr. Himanshu Satija, Adv.
Mr. E.C. Agrawala, AOR

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Heard.

Delay, if any, is condoned.

Given Section 238 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, it is obvious that the Code will override anything inconsistent contained in any other enactment, including the Income-Tax Act.

We may also refer in this Connection to Dena Bank vs. Bhikhabhai Prabhudas Parekh and Co. & Ors. (2000) 5 SCC 694 and its progeny, making it clear that income-tax dues, being in the nature of Crown debts, do not take precedence even over secured creditors, who are private persons.

We are of the view that the High Court of Delhi, is, therefore, correct in law.

Accordingly, the Special Leave Petitions are dismissed. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(R. NATARAJAN) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR)
COURT MASTER (SH) BRANCH OFFICER

Related Judgements

  1. Binoy Visam vs. UOI (Aadhaar Card Linkage With PAN) (Supreme Court) 

    Having said so, it becomes clear from the aforesaid discussion that those who are not PAN holders, while applying for PAN, they are required to give Aadhaar number. This is the stipulation of sub-section (1) of Section 139AA, which we have already upheld. At the same time, as far…
  2. PCIT vs. LG Electronics India Pvt Ltd (Supreme Court) 

    Having heard Shri Vikramjit Banerjee, learned ASG appearing on behalf of the appellant, and giving credence to the fact that he has argued before us that the administrative Circular will not operate as a fetter on the Commissioner since it is a quasi judicial authority, we only need to…
  3. CIT vs. M/s Veena Developers (Supreme Court) 

    There was much debate on the answer given in para (b) above. It was argued by Mr. Gurukrishna Kumar, learned senior counsel, that a project which is cleared as “residential plus commercial” project cannot be treated as housing project and therefore, this direction is contrary to the provisions of…
  4. ACIT vs. Victory Aqua Farm Ltd (Supreme Court) 

    In Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Anand Theatres 224 ITR 192 it was held that except in exceptional cases, the building in which the plant is situated must be distinguished from the plant and that, therefore, the assessee’s generating station building was not to be treated as a plant…
  5. CIT vs. Society For The Promotion Of Education, Adventure Sport & Conservation Of Environment (Supreme Court) 

    The short issue is with regard to the deemed registration of an application under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act. The High Court has taken the view that once an application is made under the said provision and in case the same is not responded to within six…
One comment on “PCIT vs. Monnet Ispat And Energy Ltd (Supreme Court)”
  1. Smiran says:
    May 15, 2019 at 4:59 pm

    Ajay Bhat, group CFO at Monnet Ispat & Energy, speaks to NDTV about the impact of the Supreme Court’s verdict in the coal block allocation case. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DL0ObE4ezpg

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*