Supreme Court Of India
CIT vs. Hindustan Bulk Carriers
Section 245D
N. Santosh Hedge & B.P. Singh, JJ.
Civil Appeal Nos. 7966 & 7967 of 1996
8th October, 2002
Counsel Appeared
Ms. Meera Gupta & B.U. Balram Dass, for the Appellant : Arun Sathe & Bhaskar Y. Kulkarni, for the Respondent
ORDER
N. Santosh Hedge, J. :
The question involved in these appeals pertains to determination of the starting point in regard to payment of interest arising from the order of the Settlement Commission. A 5-Member Bench of the Settlement Commission had decided this issue against the Revenue by a majority judgment. When the matter came up for preliminary hearing, a 3-Judge Bench of this Court was pleased to grant leave and directed these appeals to be heard along with certain other appeals then pending and which were listed for hearing. One such appeal was an appeal filed by the CIT, Mumbai in the case of Anjum M.H. Ghaswala & Ors. However, subsequently, by an order dt. 28th March, 2001, these appeals were delinked from the case of Ghaswala (supra), and those appeals along with some other appeals were directed to be listed for hearing after the decision of this Court in the appeal of Ghaswala (supra). The said case of Ghaswala (supra) was decided by a Constitution Bench of this Court vide the judgment reported in (2001) 171 CTR (SC) 1 : 2002 (1) SCC 633 wherein the Constitution Bench decided the question as to the scope and functions of the Settlement Commission, as also its power to either waive or reduce the statutory interest and the questions involved in these appeals were not decided. The issues involved in these appeals are not covered by the judgment of the Constitution Bench in the case of Ghaswala (supra). This case involves the interpretation of the judgment of this Court in the case of CIT vs. Express Newspapers Ltd. (1994) 116 CTR (SC) 496 : 1994 (2) SCC 374 : TC 59R.217 which is a judgment of a Bench of 3 Judges. This Court in the case of CIT vs. Damani Brothers, etc. (2002) 173 CTR (SC) 78 : 2002 (3) SCC 124 which also involved the interpretation of the said case of Express Newspapers (supra) has since referred the matter to be decided by a larger Bench, therefore, we think it appropriate that it is just and necessary that this matter be also referred to a larger Bench, and preferably be heard along with CA. No. 7248/99—Damani Brothers (supra). Accordingly, we direct that the papers of these appeals be placed before Hon’ble the CJI for appropriate orders.
[Citation : 258 ITR 399]
