Diamines & Chemicals Ltd., Baroda V. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1), Baroda

ITA 1668/AHD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8464 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-09-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 10-06-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RICHA RASTOGI
• Keywords: Transfer pricing

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, AHMEDABAD , , BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO.1668/AHD/2015 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11) DIAMINES & CHEMICALS LTD. PLOT NO.12, PCC AREA PETROCHEMICALS, BARODA-391346 / VS. THE DCIT CIRCLE-1(1) BARODA # ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AAACD 5356 R ( #% / APPELLANT ) .. ( &#% / RESPONDENT ) #%' / APPELLANT BY : SHRI SANJAY R.SHAH, AR &#%(' / RESPONDENT BY : MS. RICHA RASTOGI, SR.DR )*(+ / DATE OF HEARING 28/08/2017 ,-./(+ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 12/09/2017 / O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA - AM: THE CAPTIONED APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-1, VADOD ARA [CIT(A) IN SHORT] DATED 02/03/2015 IN THE MATTER OF ASSESSMEN T ORDER UNDER S.143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED T O AS 'THE ACT') VIDE ORDER DATED 11/03/2013 RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2010-11. ITA NO. 1668/AH D/2015 DIAMINES & CHEMICALS LTD. VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2010-11 - 2 - 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF THE C IT(A) IN SUSTAINING THE ORDER OF AO WHEREBY THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE TOWAR DS DEDUCTION UNDER S.80IA(4) WAS REDUCED FROM RS.41,47,476/- TO RS.22, 60,425/-. 3. BRIEFLY STATED, THE ASSESSEE IS MAINLY ENGAGED I N THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING AND SALES OF VARIOUS SPECIALTY CHEMIC ALS WHICH FIND APPLICATION IN DIVERSE INDUSTRIES SUCH AS PHARMACEU TICALS, AGRO CHEMICALS, DYES AND PIGMENTS ETC. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO SIMUL TANEOUSLY ENGAGED IN THE GENERATION OF WIND-POWER AND HAS INSTALLED WIND -ELECTRIC GENERATORS (WINDMILLS) IN THE STATES OF GUJARAT AND MAHARASHTR A FOR THIS PURPOSE. THE ASSESSEE IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME INTER ALIA CLAIMED DEDUCTION UNDER S.80IA(4) IN RESPECT OF NOTIONAL PROFITS ON CAPTIVE POWER PLANT SET UP AT KUTCH, GUJARAT PLANT AMOUNTING TO RS.41,47,476/-. THE RETURN OF INCOME OF ASSESSEE WAS SUBJECTED TO SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) IS STATED TO HAVE APPLIED AVERAGE COST OF PUR CHASE OF ELECTRICITY BY GUJARAT ELECTRICITY BOARD FOR THE PURPOSES OF DETE RMINATION OF ELIGIBLE PROFITS OF THE CAPTIVE POWER PLANT FOR THE PURPOSES OF COMPUTATION OF DEDUCTION UNDER S.80IA(4) HAVING REGARD TO THE PROV ISIONS OF SECTION 80IA(8) R.W.S.80IA(10) OF THE ACT. THE RATE PER UN IT ON WHICH POWER GENERATING COMPANY I.E. GUVNL PURCHASED POWER FRO M OTHER SOURCES WAS TAKEN AS A BENCHMARK FOR DETERMINATION OF MARKE T VALUE OF CAPTIVE POWER GENERATED BY THE ASSESSEE IN PLACE OF SALE PR ICE OF GUVNL TO ITS CONSUMERS. THE AO ACCORDINGLY SUBSTITUTED THE CLAI M OF DEDUCTION ITA NO. 1668/AH D/2015 DIAMINES & CHEMICALS LTD. VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2010-11 - 3 - UNDER S.80IA (4) TO RS.22,60,425/-. CONSEQUENTLY, RELIEF UNDER S.80IA(4) WAS DENIED TO THE EXTENT OF RS.18,87,051/-. 4. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) ALSO DECLINED TO ENTERTAIN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE AFORESAID ISSUE. 5. FURTHER AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEF ORE THE TRIBUNAL. 6. THE LD.AR FOR THE ASSESSEE, AT THE OUTSET, SUBMI TTED THAT IN RESPECT OF THE CAPTIVE POWER PLANT, THE ASSESSEE HAD ADOPTE D RS.4.60 PER UNIT/KWH FOR THE PURPOSES OF DETERMINATION OF MARKE T VALUE OF ELIGIBLE PROFITS TO SEEK CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER S.80IA(4) OF THE ACT. THE AO HOWEVER, HAS SUBSTITUTED THE AFORESAID MARKET PRICE OF RS.4.60 PER UNIT TO RS.2.87 WHICH REPRESENTS THE AVERAGE PURCHASE PRICE OF OTHER ELECTRICITY UNDERTAKING NAMELY GUVNL. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT TH E CIT(A) HAS ALSO WRONGLY ENDORSED THE AFORESAID ACTION OF THE AO. T HE CLAIM OF ELIGIBLE DEDUCTION UNDER S.80IA(4) WAS THUS REDUCED BY RS.18 ,87,051/-. THE LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT FOR THE PURPOSES OF DETERMINAT ION OF ELIGIBLE PROFIT UNDER S.80IA(4) OF THE ACT FROM GENERATION OF POWER FOR CAPTIVE CONSUMPTION, THE AO OUGHT TO HAVE ACCEPTED THE RATE ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH REPRESENTS THE SELLING PRICE AT WHIC H GEB SUPPLIED POWER TO ITS CONSUMERS. THE LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT THE REV ENUE AUTHORITIES FELL ITA NO. 1668/AH D/2015 DIAMINES & CHEMICALS LTD. VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2010-11 - 4 - IN ERROR IN NOT ADOPTING THE MARKET VALUE AS PER THE RATE AT WHICH SUPPLIES WERE MADE BY THE GUJARAT ELECTRICITY BOARD TO ITS CONSUMERS. THE LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT THE VALUE AT WHICH A STATE GRID OR A THIRD PARTY PURCHASES POWER DOES NOT CONSTITUTE MARKET VALUE PER SE IN TERMS OF EXPLANATION TO SECTION 80IA(8) OF THE ACT. IT IS THE SELLING PRICE OF THE ELECTRICITY BOARD WHICH IS RELEVANT. THE LD.AR SUBM ITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CONSIDERED THE AVERAGE RATE PER UNIT A T WHICH MGVCL IS CHARGING TO ITS CUSTOMER FOR DETERMINATION OF MARK ET VALUE OF THE ELECTRICITY GENERATED BY ITS POWER PLANT FOR CAPTIV E CONSUMPTION WHICH IS IN TUNE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IA(8) OF T HE ACT. THE LD.AR RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIG H COURT IN PR.CIT VS. GUJARAT ALKALIES AND CHEMICALS LTD. (2007) 395 ITR 247 (GUJ.) FOR THE AFORESAID PROPOSITION. PERTINENT TO NOTE HERE, IN THE COURSE OF THE ARGUMENTS CANVASSED BY THE LD.AR, IT WAS POINTED OU T BY THE BENCH THAT A VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN ON THE IMPUGNED ISSUE RECENTL Y IN RAINBOW PAPERS LTD. VS. ACIT WHICH IS LIKELY TO BE FOLLOWED. IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE BENCH THAT DULY, SURCHARGE, CESS ETC. CHARGED BY TH E ELECTRICITY BOARDS TO ITS CONSUMERS WOULD NOT FORM PART OF THE MARKET PR ICE. 7. THE LD.DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED UPON THE OR DERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. ITA NO. 1668/AH D/2015 DIAMINES & CHEMICALS LTD. VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2010-11 - 5 - 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE SUBSTANTIVE ISSUE TH AT ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS COMPUTATION OF ELIGIBLE PROFITS FOR CLAIM OF DEDICTOPM UNDER S.80IA(4) R.W.S.80IA(8) IN RESPECT OF ASSESSE ES CAPTIVE WIND POWER PLANT. FOR THE PURPOSES OF CLAIMING TAX HOLI DAY, THE ASSESSEE CONSIDERED THE AVERAGE RATE AT WHICH POWER WAS SOLD BY AN INDEPENDENT POWER SUPPLIER, I.E. MGVCL TO ITS CUSTOMERS TO ENAB LE IT TO DETERMINE THE MARKET VALUE OF ELECTRICITY IS GENERATED BY ITS C APTIVE WIND POWER PLANT. THE AO, ON THE OTHER HAND, HAS PLACED RELI ANCE UPON THE AVERAGE PRICE AT WHICH GUVNL HAS PURCHASED POWER FOR SUPPLY TO CUSTOMERS. CONSEQUENTLY, THE ELIGIBLE PROFIT UNDER S.80IA(4) W AS REDUCED BY RS.18,87,051/-. 9. WE OBSERVE THAT THE IDENTICAL ISSUE HAS BEEN SQ UARELY DEALT WITH IN THE CASE OF RAINBOW PAPERS LTD. VS. ACIT IN IT(SS)A NOS .101 TO 103/AHD/2013 FOR AYS2008-09 TO 2010-11 ORDER DATED 11/07/2017 WHERE ONE OF US IS PARTY TO THE DECISION. IN THAT CASE, IT WAS HELD THAT THE DEEMED SALES PRICE OF THE POWER SUPPLIED BY INDEPEN DENT POWER PLANTS (UGVCL IN THAT CASE) EXCLUDING THE COST TOWARDS S URCHARGE AND DUTY ETC. LEVIED BY THE SUPPLIER SHOULD BE ADOPTED FOR T HE PURPOSES OF DETERMINATION OF MARKET PRICE FOR COMPUTATION OF ELIGIBLE PROFIT UNDER S.80IA(4) R.W.S.80IA(8) OF THE ACT. THE RELEVANT PA RA OF THE AFORESAID ITA NO. 1668/AH D/2015 DIAMINES & CHEMICALS LTD. VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2010-11 - 6 - ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DEALING WITH THE DETERMINATIO N OF ELIGIBLE PROFIT READS AS UNDER:- 15. WE SHALL NOW TURN TO THE SECOND AND MAJOR CONT ROVERSY RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS THE MARKET VALUE OF CAPTIVE TRANSFER OF P OWER GENERATED BY POWER UNIT TO ITS PAPER UNIT FOR CAPTIVE USE. AS NARRATED EARLIER, THE ASSESSEE HAS ADOPTED THE RATE CHARGED BY THE GEB (UGVCL) INCLUDING SURCHARGE AND DUTY FOR THE PURPOSE OF WORKING OUT THE DEEMED SELLING PRICE OF POWER BEING SUPPLIED BY THE CAPTIVE POWER GENERATING UNIT TO PAPER UNIT. THE DEEMED SALE VAL UE TOWARDS CAPTIVE SUPPLY THUS INCLUDED RECOVERY TOWARDS SURCHARGE AND DUTY SI MILAR TO WHAT IS MADE BY THE ELECTRICITY BOARD ON THE BASIC SALE PRICE TO ITS CO NSUMERS. THE AO DECLINED TO ADMIT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE TO INCLUDE SURCHARGE AND DUTY LEVIED BY THE GEB (UGVCL) FOR THE PURPOSES OF CALCULATION OF SELLING PRICE. IN OTHER WORDS, THE AO ADJUSTED THE DEEMED SALE PRICE OF THE POWER TO EXCLUDE FUEL SUR CHARGE AND DUTY CHARGEABLE THEREON IN COMMERCIAL SALE. 15.1. THE AO WHILE DETERMINING THE DEEMED SALE PRICE OF POWER SUPPLIED BY THE CAPTIVE POWER GENERATING UNIT TO PAPER UNIT EXCLUDE D THE COST TOWARDS SURCHARGE AND DUTY LEVIED BY GEB (UGVCL) FOR THE PURPOSES OF DETE RMINATION OF ARMS LENGTH PRICE. THE ELIGIBLE PROFITS UNDER S.80IA(4) R.W.S.8 0IA(8) OF THE ACT WAS ACCORDINGLY BROUGHT DOWN BY THE AO TO THE EXTENT OF DUTY AND SU RCHARGE. THE CIT(A) ALSO DECLINED TO ADMIT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS SURCHARGE AND DUTY FOR THE PURPOSES OF CALCULATION OF SELLING RATE PER UNIT. THIS APART, THE CIT(A) FURTHER TOOK NOTE OF THE AVERAGE PRICE CHARGED BY VARIOUS DISTRI BUTION COMPANIES COMMONLY KNOWN AS DISCOMS AND EVENTUALLY CALCULATED THE SE LLING PRICE AT RS.2.99 PER UNIT AS PER WORKING REPRODUCED IN PRECEDING PARAS. THE ASS ESSEE HAS VEHEMENTLY CONTESTED THE AFORESAID ACTION OF THE CIT(A). THUS, THE SUB STANTIVE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT (I) THE DEEMED SELLING PRICE SHOULD BE DETERMI NED AT THE AVERAGE PRICE AT WHICH THE GEB (UGVCL) IS SUPPLYING TO ITS CONSUMERS AND N OT THE AVERAGE RATE OF SUPPLY AS ADOPTED BY THE CIT(A) BASED ON THE PRICE CHARGED BY THE DISTRIBUTION COMPANY DISCOMS IN THE OPEN MARKET AND (II) WITHOUT EXCLU DING SURCHARGE AND DUTY. HOWEVER, IN THE COURSE OF HEARING AS WELL AS FROM T HE SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE CIT(A), WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE WHILE FIERCELY ASSERTING ITS CLAIM FOR INCLUSION OF SURCHARGE IS NOT SERIOUSLY CONTESTING THE EXCLUSION OF DUTY CHARGED BY THE GEB (UGVCL). THUS, TWO POINTS OF DIFFERENCE REMAINS IN DETERMINA TION OF DEEMED SELLING PRICE, ONE ITA NO. 1668/AH D/2015 DIAMINES & CHEMICALS LTD. VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2010-11 - 7 - TOWARDS AVERAGE SELLING PRICE AS PER DISCOMS AND SE COND TOWARDS INCLUSION OF SURCHARGE. 15.2. THE ASSESSEE ASSERTS THE RATE CHARGED BY THE GEB (UGVCL) AS BENCHMARK RATE FOR THE PURPOSES OF DEEMED SELLING PRICE ALONG WITH SURCHARGE COLLECTED BY THE ELECTRICITY BOARD. 15.3. IN THE CONTEXT, IT WILL BE RELEVANT TO REFE R SECTION 80IA(8) OF THE ACT WHICH PROVIDES FOR THE MANNER OF COMPUTATION OF TRANSFER PRICE WHERE THERE IS CAPTIVE CONSUMPTION OF FINISHED-GOODS OF ELIGIBLE UNIT FOR THE PURPOSES OF COMPUTATION OF DEDUCTION UNDER S.80IA(4) OF THE ACT. WE FIND STRE NGTH IN THE ASSERTION ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE MARKET PRICE IS TO BE DETERMI NED IN SYNC WITH THE RATE PRESCRIBED BY THE GEB (UGVCL). THE AFORESAID PRICE IS MOST RELIABLE FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINATION OF ARMS LENGTH PRICE. TH US, WE DO NOT SEE ANY LOGIC FOR DEVIATION FROM THE SAME AND APPLY AVERAGE PRICE OF OTHER COMPANIES WITHOUT ANY SOLID BASIS. 16. WE NOW SEEK TO DWELL ON OTHER ASPECT OF CONT ROVERSY I.E. INCLUDIBILITY FOR OTHERWISE OF SURCHARGE IN THE DEEMED SELLING PRI CE. THE CONTROVERSY CONCERNS AS TO WHETHER SURCHARGE AND DUTY LEVIED BY THE POWER GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION COMPANIES TO ITS CONSUMER WILL FORM PART OF SELLING PRICE OR NOT FOR THE DETERMINATION OF MARKET VALUE UNDER S.80IA(8) FOR CALCULATION OF ELIGIBLE PROFITS UNDER S.80IA(4) OF THE ACT. 16.1. IN THIS REGARD, WE REFER TO THE ELECTRICITY ACT, 2003 AND NOTE THAT SURCHARGE IS APPLIED WITH AN OBJECT OF MEETING THE REQUIREMENT OF CURRENT LEVEL CROSS SUBSIDY. THE AFORESAID ACT CLEARLY PROVIDES THAT SURCHARGE S HALL NOT BE LEVIABLE IN CASE OPEN ACCESS IS PROVIDED TO A PERSON WHO HAD ESTABLISHED A CAPTIVE GENERATING PLANT FOR HIRING ELECTRICITY TO THE DESTINATION OF HIS OWN US E. IN PARITY, THE CAPTIVE POWER GENERATING PLANT IS NOT ENTITLED TO RECOVER SURCHAR GE WHILE TRANSFERRING THE POWER FOR CAPTIVE USE BY OPERATION OF LAW. THIS BEING SO, TH E DEEMING SELLING PRICE SHOULD ALSO NOT INCLUDE THE COMPONENT OF SURCHARGE WHICH IS NOT CHARGEABLE AT THE FIRST PLACE IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 16.2. THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF PRAGATI GLASS ( SUPRA) ALSO PROVIDES EXCLUSION OF EXCISE DUTY FOR THE PURPOSES OF DETERMINATION OF MA RKET VALUE OF ELECTRICITY GENERATED. ITA NO. 1668/AH D/2015 DIAMINES & CHEMICALS LTD. VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2010-11 - 8 - THE DUTY BEING EXCLUDED, SURCHARGE MEANT FOR SPEC IFIC PURPOSES CANNOT FORM PART OF PROFITS OF THE ELIGIBLE BUSINESS. WE ALSO TAKE NOT E OF SIMILAR OBSERVATIONS HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN WES T COAST PAPER MILLS LTD. VS. ACIT 103 ITD 19 (MUM.) REFERRED TO AND RELIED UPON BY THE REVENUE TO SUPPORT OUR VIEW. 16.3. IN PARITY, WE HOLD THAT BOTH SURCHARGE AND DUTY SHALL NOT FORM PART OF THE DEEMED SALE PRICE BEING EXTRANEOUS CHARGES FOR DETE RMINATION OF MARKET VALUE IN TERMS OF S.80IA(8) OF THE ACT. 16.4. THUS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT WHILE AVERA GING OF SELLING PRICE AS PER PRICES OF VARIOUS DISTRIBUTION COMPANIES IS NOT WARRANTED, TH E AVERAGE STANDARD SALE PRICE CHARGED BY ELECTRICITY BOARD EXCLUDING SURCHARGE, DUTY AND TAXES ETC. IS RELIABLE BENCHMARK FOR COMPUTATION DEEMED SALE PRICE AND MAR KET VALUE OF GOODS/SERVICES SUPPLIED. 10. IN THE LIGHT OF THE AFORESAID DECISION, WE AR E IN AGREEMENT WITH THE CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THAT FOR THE PURPOSES OF DETERMINATION OF MARKET VALUE OF GOODS/SERVICES OF ELIGIBLE BUSINESS, IT IS THE SALE OF PRICE AT WHICH THE ELECTRICITY BOARD SUPPLIES ELECTRICITY TO ITS CONSUMER WHICH WILL BE TAKEN AS MARKET PRICE, SUBJE CT HOWEVER, TO THE EXCLUSION OF SURCHARGE, DUTY ETC. THEREON. THE ISSU E IS THUS ACCORDINGLY RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR DETERMINATI ON OF ELIGIBLE PROFIT FOR THE PURPOSES OF DEDUCTION UNDER S.80IA(4) OF THE AC T IN THE LIGHT OF OBSERVATIONS OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN RAINBOW PAPERS LTD.(SUPRA). ITA NO. 1668/AH D/2015 DIAMINES & CHEMICALS LTD. VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2010-11 - 9 - 11. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 12/ 09 /2017 SD/- SD/- () ( ) (RAJPAL YADAV) ( PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 12/ 09 /2017 3..),.)../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS !'#$%$' / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. #% / THE APPELLANT 2. &#% / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 456+ 7+ / CONCERNED CIT 4. 7+ ( ) / THE CIT(A)-1, VADODARA 5. 89:+)56 , 56/ , 4 / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. :<* / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, &8++ //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION ..8.9.17 (DICTATION-PAD 15- PAG ES ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS APPEAL-FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 8.9.17 3. OTHER MEMBER 4. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S.. 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S.12.9.17 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 12.9.17 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK ... 9. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 10. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER