Auto Desk Asia Pte Ltd., Bangalore V. Asst. DIT,

ITA 1758/BANG/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3235 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 year(s) 4 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-06-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 13-02-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VANDANA SAGAR
• Assessee Lawyers: T SURYANARAYANA
• Keywords: Double taxation relief; Retrospective amendment; Advance ruling; TDS; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 195; 144C; 13; 22

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A NO.1758/BANG/2013 IT(TP)A NO.294/BANG/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/S AUTODESK ASIA PVT. LTD., 3, FUSIONOPOLIS WAY, #10-21 SYMIOSIS SINGAPORE 138 633. PAN AAFCA 6398 D VS. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (ITA NO.294) & THE ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX (IT(TP)A NO.1758 (INTL. TAXATION), CIRCLE-1(1), BENGALURU. APPELLANT RESPONDENT IT(TP)A NO.489/BANG/2016 IT(TP)A NO.191/BANG/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S AUTODESK ASIA PVT. LTD., 3, FUSIONOPOLIS WAY, #10-21 SYMIOSIS SINGAPORE 138 633. PAN AAFCA 6398 D VS. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER (INTL. TAXATION), WARD-1(1), BENGALURU. APPELLANT RESPONDENT REVENUE BY : SMT. VANDANA SAGAR, CIT-DR ASSESSEE BY : SHRI T SURYANARAYANA, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING : 05-04-2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14-06-2021 ORDER PAGE 2 OF 9 IT(T P)A NO.294/BANG/2015,1758/BANG/2013,489/BANG/2016 &19 1/BANG/2017 PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER PRESENT APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY ASSESSEE AGAINST ORDERS DATED 22/1/2016 PASSED BY THE ITO (INTL. TAXATION), BANGALORE FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010-11 TO 2013-14. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS A SINGAPORE BASED COMPANY. IT W AS SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF DISTRIBUTION OF COMPUTER SOFTWARE AND PROVIDING ANC ILLARY SERVICES TO ITS INDIAN DISTRIBUTORS/CUSTOMERS. IN CERTAIN CASES ASSESSEE ALSO SOLD HARDWARE TO INDIAN PARTIES. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE SALE OF SOFTWARE/HARDWARE WAS MADE OUTSIDE INDIA, AND THE SALE PROCEEDS OF THE SALE/ANCILLARY SERVICES FR OM THE INDIAN DISTRIBUTORS/CUSTOMERS WERE RECEIVED BY ASSESSEE OU TSIDE INDIA. 2.1 FOR YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE FILE D RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING NIL TAXABLE INCOME. THE RETURN WA S SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY. THE LD.AO OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE RECE IVED USD35,543,777/- AS CONSIDERATION TOWARDS SOFTWARE L ICENSED TO INDIAN DISTRIBUTORS/CUSTOMERS. THE LD.AO WHILE PA SSING DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER HELD THAT THE CONSIDERATION SO REC EIVED AMOUNTS TO ROYALTY U/S 9(1)(VI) OF THE ACT AND ART 12 OF INDIA- SINGAPORE DTAA. 2.2 THE LD.AO ALSO PROPOSED TO TAX THE CONSIDERATIO N RECEIVED FROM INDIAN DISTRIBUTORS/CUSTOMERS FOR SALE OF HARD WARE AS ROYALTY ON THE BASIS THAT HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE ARE INSEPARABLE AND THAT THE SOFTWARE CANNOT FUNCTION IN THE OBSCEN E OF HARDWARE. 2.3. ON FILING OBJECTION BEFORE THE DRP, IT WAS HEL D AS UNDER:- (2.1.16) THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO PROVE S O BEFORE THIS PANEL TOO AND HENCE, WE REJECT THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSE E AS WELL. THIS GROUND PAGE 3 OF 9 IT(T P)A NO.294/BANG/2015,1758/BANG/2013,489/BANG/2016 &19 1/BANG/2017 IS SIMILAR TO THE GROUNDS TAKEN BEFORE THE EARLIER DRP PANELS AS WELL AND WE FIND NO REASON TO TAKE A DIFFERENT STAND IN THE ASSESSEES CASE. THESE GROUNDS ARE ACCORDINGLY REJECTED. HOWEVER, WE ARE O F THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT AS THE RECEIPTS ARE TAXED WITH REFERENCE TO AC TUAL REMITTANCES AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE DTAA, AND AS THERE IS NO EXPL ICIT RESTRICTION IN THE DTAA THAT THE REMITTANCES OUGHT TO MADE WITHIN THE SAME FINANCIAL YEAR, WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION IN THE AO'S ACTION IN ADOPTING DIFFERENTIAL RATES OF TAXATION FOR THE REMITTANCES MADE IN THE S AME YEAR AND FOR THE REMITTANCES MADE RELATING TO OTHER YEARS. WE ALSO N OTE THAT THE AO ALSO HAS NOT GIVEN ANY REASONING FOR ADOPTING THE DIFFER ENTIAL RATES. THEREFORE, WE CONSIDER IT APPROPRIATE TO DIRECT THE AO TO ADOP T THE RATE SPECIFIED IN THE DTAA, IN REGARD TO ALL THE REMITTANCES MADE. 2.4. THE DRP RELIED DECISION OF HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN CSE OF M/S SYNOPSIS INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. IN ITA NO.11-15/2008 BY ORDER DATED 3/8/2010 AND SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS LTD . REPORTED IN 2011-TIL-43-HC-KAR-INTLI. THE LD.AO ON RECEIPT OF DRP DIRECTION PASSED FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDERS IN ALL YEA RS UNDER CONSIDERATION. 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD.AO ASSESSEE IS IN A PPEAL. 4. AT THE OUTSET IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BY BOTH SIDE S THAT ISSUES INVOLVED IN ALL APPEALS UNDER CONSIDERATION AS SAME ON IDENTICAL FACTS. WE ARE THEREFORE DISPOSING OFF TH ESE APPEALS BY WAY OF A COMMON ORDER. 5. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, WE REPRODUCE GROUND S OF APPEAL RAISED BY ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012- 13 AS UNDER: THE APPELLANT SUBMITS AS UNDER: 1 ASSESSMENT BAD IN LAW AND ON FACTS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 22 JANUARY 2016 PASSED B Y THE INCOME- TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), WARD-1(L) ['T HE AU'] UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 144C OF THE INCOME- TAX AC T, 1961 (THE ACT'), IS BAD IN LAW AND ON FACTS. 2 ERRONEOUS DEMANDS THE AO HAS ERRED IN: PAGE 4 OF 9 IT(T P)A NO.294/BANG/2015,1758/BANG/2013,489/BANG/2016 &19 1/BANG/2017 A) DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE APPELLANT AT RS. 2,090,790,838; B) LEVYING INCOME-TAX OF RS. 219,658,486; AND C) RAISING A DEMAND OF RS. 16,969,420 UPON THE APPE LLANT. 3 ERRONEOUS TREATMENT OF THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED F OR SALE OF SOFTWARE AS 'ROYALTY' 3.1 THE AO AND THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL ('DRP') HAVE ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY THE A PPELLANT WOULD NOT QUALIFY AS 'ROYALTY' UNDER ARTICLE 12 OF THE DOUBLE TAXATION AVOIDANCE AGREEMENT BETWEEN INDIA AND SINGAPORE ('THE DTAA') AND UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. 3.2 THE AO AND THE DRP HAVE ERRED IN NOT HOLDING TH AT THE DEFINITION OF ROYALTY' UNDER THE DTAA HAS NOT UNDERGONE ANY CHANG E DESPITE OF THE RETROSPECTIVE AMENDMENT MADE VIDE FINANCE ACT, 2012 , TO SECTION 9(L)(VI) OF THE ACT. 3.3 THE AO AND THE DRP HAVE ERRED IN HOLDING THAT T HE DEFINITION OF ROYALTY' UNDER THE ACT AND THE DTAA ARE PARI-MAT ERIA I.E. THEY SHOULD BE CONSTRUED WITH REFERENCE TO EACH OTHER. 3.4 THE AO AND THE DRP ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT TH E CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT WAS NOT FOR TRANSFER OF C OPYRIGHT TO THE DISTRIBUTORS OR END-USERS BUT FOR SALE OF SOFTWARE/ COPYRIGHTED PRODUCT. 3.5 THE AO AND THE DRP ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT TH E APPELLANT DOES NOT HOLD COPYRIGHT IN THE SOFTWARE, DESPITE OF THE FACT THAT IT HAD ONLY DISTRIBUTION/ LIMITED RIGHTS OF THE COPYRIGHTED PRO DUCT. 3.6 THE AO AND THE DRP FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT AC CESS TO SOFTWARE WHEREIN A SUBJECT MATTER OF COPYRIGHT IS EMBEDDED, WITHOUT THE RIGHT TO EXPLOIT THE COPYRIGHT, DOES NOT AMOUNT TO USE OR RI GHT TO USE THE COPYRIGHT IN THE COPYRIGHTED WORK. 3.7 THE AO AND THE DRP HAVE ERRED IN HOLDING THAT T HE APPELLANT HAD EFFECTIVELY SOLD THE SOFTWARE TO END-USERS, EVEN WH ERE THE APPELLANT HAD ENTERED INTO AGREEMENT WITH THE DISTRIBUTORS/ R ESELLERS WHO IN TURN HAD SOLD THE SOFTWARE TO THE END USERS. 3.8 THE AO AND THE DRP HAVE ERRED IN NOT HOLDING TH AT AS THE PAYMENT RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT FROM THE INDIAN DISTRIBUT ORS WAS NOT TO BE MEASURED BY REFERENCE TO THE PRODUCTIVITY OR USE OF THE SOFTWARE, IT COULD NOT BE CONSTRUED AS ROYALTY. 3.9 THE AO AND THE DRP ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT SI NCE SOFTWARE IS CLASSIFIABLE AS 'GOODS' UNDER THE KARNATAKA VALUE A DDED TAX ACT, 2003, PAYMENTS RECEIVED FOR THE SALE OF SOFTWARE CO ULD NOT BE CONSTRUED AS ROYALTY'. 3.10 THE AO AND THE DRP HAVE ERRED IN NOT FOLLOWING CERTAIN DECISIONS RENDERED BY THE DELHI HIGH COURT, THE AUT HORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING AND VARIOUS BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL. PAGE 5 OF 9 IT(T P)A NO.294/BANG/2015,1758/BANG/2013,489/BANG/2016 &19 1/BANG/2017 4 ERRONEOUS TREATMENT OF THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED FOR SALE OF HARDWARE AS 'ROYALTY' THE AO AND THE DRP HAVE ERRED IN LAW IN TREATING TH E CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT FROM INDIAN DISTRIBUTORS/ CUSTOMERS FOR SALE OF HARDWARE AS 'ROYALTY' INCOME TAXABLE IN INDIA. 5. ERRONEOUS CONCLUSION ON APPLICABILITY OF ARTICL E 24 OF THE DTAA 5.1 THE AO AND THE DRP HAVE ERRED IN CONCLUDING THA T THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 24 OF THE DTAA ARE APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE APPELLANT. 5.2 WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE GROUND IN PARA 5.1 ABO VE, THE AO AND THE DRP HAVE ERRED IN NOT APPLYING THE RATE OF TAX AS PER THE DTAA EVEN THOUGH THE APPELLANT HAD RECEIVED THE ENTIRE C ONSIDERATION IN SINGAPORE IN RESPECT OF THE INVOICES RAISED DURING THE PERIOD 1 APRIL 2011 TO 31 MARCH 2012. 5.3 THE AO HAS ERRED IN APPLYING SURCHARGE AND CESS ON THE TAX COMPUTED. 6 . SHORT CREDIT OF TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE THE AO HAS ERRED IN NOT GRANTING CREDIT OF TAX DEDU CTED AT SOURCE TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 647,927. 7. INITIATION OF PENALTY THE AO HAS ERRED IN INITIATING PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271(1 )(C) OF THE ACT. 8. RELIEF THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE AO BE DIRECTED TO GRAN T ALL SUCH RELIEF ARISING FROM THE PRECEDING GROUNDS AS ALSO ALL RELI EF CONSEQUENTIAL THERETO. THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THE ABOVE GROUNDS AND SU B-GROUNDS ARE INDEPENDENT OF AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ONE ANOTHER . 11. ADMITTEDLY, THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN PRESENT APPEA LS HAS BEEN SET AT REST BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN A RECENT CASE OF ENGINEERING ANALYSIS CENTRE OF EXCELLENCE PVT. LTD. VS CIT REPORTED IN 2021 SCC ONLINE SC 159 . HONBLE SUPREME COURT WHILE CONSIDERING THE ISSUE OF ROYALTY ON SALE OF SOFTWAR E HAVE CONSIDERED THE DECISION OF HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO LTD. (SUPRA) AND VARIOUS OTHER DECISIONS. PAGE 6 OF 9 IT(T P)A NO.294/BANG/2015,1758/BANG/2013,489/BANG/2016 &19 1/BANG/2017 12. WE HAVE PERUSED THE SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED BY BOT H SIDES IN LIGHT OF RECORDS PLACED BEFORE US. WE NOTE THAT HONBLE SUPREME COURT CONSIDERED THE ISSUE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- '3. ONE GROUP OF APPEALS ARISES FROM A COMMON JUDGM ENT OF THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DATED 15.10.2011 REPORTED AS CIT V. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. LTD., (2012) 345 ITR 494, BY WHICH THE QUESTION WHICH WAS POSED BEFORE THE HIGH COURT, WAS ANSWERED STATI NG THAT THE AMOUNTS PAID BY THE CONCERNED PERSONS RESIDENT IN I NDIA TO NON-RESIDENT, FOREIGN SOFTWARE SUPPLIERS, AMOUNTED TO ROYALTY AND AS THIS WAS .SO, THE SAME CONSTITUTED TAXABLE INCOME DEEMED TO ACCRUE IN INDIA UNDER SECTION 9(1)(VI) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ['INCOME TAX A CT'], THEREBY MAKING IT INCUMBENT UPON ALL SUCH PERSONS TO DEDUCT TAX AT SO URCE AND PAY SUCH TAX DEDUCTIBLE AT SOURCE ['I'DS'] UNDER SECTION 195 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THIS JUDGMENT DATED 15.10.2011 HAS BEEN RELIED UPON BY THE SUBSEQUENT IMPUGNED JUDGMENTS PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT OF KARN ATAKA TO DECIDE THE SAME QUESTION IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE. THE APPEALS BEFORE US MAY BE GROUPED INTO FOUR CATE GORIES: I) THE FIRST CATEGORY DEALS WITH CASES IN WHICH COM PUTER SOFTWARE IS PURCHASED DIRECTLY BY AN END-USER, RESIDENT IN INDI A, FROM A FOREIGN, NON- RESIDENT SUPPLIER OR MANUFACTURER. II) THE SECOND CATEGORY OF CASES DEALS WITH RESIDEN T INDIAN COMPANIES THAT ACT AS DISTRIBUTORS OR RESELLERS, BY PURCHASIN G COMPUTER SOFTWARE FROM FOREIGN, NON-RESIDENT SUPPLIERS OR MANUFACTURE RS AND THEN RESELLING THE SAME TO RESIDENT INDIAN END-USERS. III) THE THIRD CATEGORY CONCERNS CASES WHEREIN THE DISTRIBUTOR HAPPENS TO BE A FOREIGN, NON-RESIDENT VENDOR, WHO, AFTER PURCH ASING SOFTWARE FROM A FOREIGN, NON-RESIDENT SELLER, RESELLS THE SAME TO R ESIDENT INDIAN DISTRIBUTORS OR END-USERS. IV) THE FOURTH CATEGORY INCLUDES CASES WHEREIN COMP UTER SOFTWARE IS AFFIXED ONTO HARDWARE AND IS SOLD AS AN INTEGRATED UNIT/ EQUIPMENT.' HON'BLE SUPREME COURT, CONSIDERED VARIOUS ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE REVENUE AS WELL AS THE ASSESSEE'S AND CAME TO THE C ONCLUSION AS UNDER: CONCLUSION 168. GIVEN THE DEFINITION OF ROYALTIES CONTAINED IN ARTICLE 12 OF THE DTAAS MENTIONED IN PARAGRAPH 41 OF THIS JUDGMENT, IT IS C LEAR THAT THERE IS NO OBLIGATION ON THE PERSONS MENTIONED IN SECTION 195 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE, AS THE DISTRIBUTION AGREEM ENTS/EULAS IN THE FACTS OF THESE CASES DO NOT CREATE ANY INTEREST OR RIGHT IN SUCH DISTRIBUTORS/END-USERS, WHICH WOULD AMOUNT TO THE U SE OF OR RIGHT TO USE ANY COPYRIGHT. THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN THE INCO ME TA ACT (SECTION 9(1)(VI, ALONG WITH EXPLANATIONS 2 AND 4 THEREOF), WHICH DEAL WITH ROYALTY, PAGE 7 OF 9 IT(T P)A NO.294/BANG/2015,1758/BANG/2013,489/BANG/2016 &19 1/BANG/2017 NOT BEING MORE BENEFICIAL TO THE ASSESSEES, HAVE NO APPLICATION IN THE FACTS OF THESE CASES. 169. OUR ANSWER TO THE QUESTION POSED BEFORE US, IS THAT THE AMOUNTS PAID BY RESIDENT INDIAN END-USERS/DISTRIBUTORS TO N ON-RESIDENT COMPUTER SOFTWARE MANUFACTURERS/ SUPPLIERS, AS CONSIDERATION FOR THE RESALE/USE OF THE COMPUTER SOFTWARE THROUGH EULAS/DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENTS, IS NOT THE PAYMENT OF ROYALTY FOR THE USE OF COPYRIGHT IN THE COMPUTER SOFTWARE, AND THAT THE SAME DOES NOT GIVE RISE TO ANY INCOME TAXABLE IN INDIA, AS A RESULT OF WHICH THE PERSONS REFERRED TO IN SECTION 195 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT WERE NOT LIABLE TO DEDUCT ANY TDS UNDER SECTION 195 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION WILL APPLY TO ALL FOUR CATEGORIES OF CASES ENUMERATED BY US IN PARAGRAPH 4 OF THIS JUDGM ENT. 170.THE APPEALS FROM THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENTS OF THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA ARE ALLOWED, AND THE AFORESAID JUDGMENTS ARE SET ASIDE. THE RULING OF THE AAR IN CITRIX SYSTEMS (AJAR) (SUPRA) IS SET ASIDE. THE APPEALS FROM THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENTS OF THE HIGH COU RT OF DELHI ARE DISMISSED.' 13. WE NOTE THAT CSE OF PRESENT ASSESSEE FALLS WITH IN THE SECOND AND FORTH CATEGORY ANALYSED BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT . RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE VIEW BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF ENGINEERING ANALYSIS CENTRE OF EXCELLENCE P VT. LTD. VS. CIT (SUPRA). WE HOLD THAT PURCHASE OF SOFTWARE IN THE PRESENT FACTS DOES NOT AMOUNT TO GIVE RISE TO ANY TAXABLE INCOME IN INDIA AS A RESULT OF WHICH PROVISIONS OF SEC.195 OF THE ACT AR E NOT ATTRACTED. THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT HAVE ANY OBLIGATION TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE. THEREFORE, PROVISIONS OF SEC.9(1)(VI) ALON G WITH EXPLANT6ION 2 IS NOT APPLICABLE TO PRESENT ASSESSEE S. ACCORDINGLY WE ALLOW THE APPEAL IN TERMS OF GROUND NO.3. ALL OTHER GROUNDS BECOMES ACADEMIC. THE ABOVE VIEW IS APPLIED MUTATIS MUTANDIS TO THE OTHER ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION. IN THE RESULT ALL APPEALS FILED BY ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14 TH JUNE, 2021 SD/- SD/- (CHANDRA POOJARI) (BEENA PILLAI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL ME MBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 14 TH JUNE, 2021. PAGE 8 OF 9 IT(T P)A NO.294/BANG/2015,1758/BANG/2013,489/BANG/2016 &19 1/BANG/2017 /VMS/ COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, BANGALORE PAGE 9 OF 9 IT(T P)A NO.294/BANG/2015,1758/BANG/2013,489/BANG/2016 &19 1/BANG/2017 DATE INITIAL 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON ON DRAGON SR.PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR -6-2021 SR.PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER -6-2021 JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. -6-2021 JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS -6-2021 SR.PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON -6-2021 SR.PS 7. DATE OF UPLOADING THE ORDER ON WEBSITE -6-2021 SR.PS 8. IF NOT UPLOADED, FURNISH THE REASON -- SR.PS 9. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK -6-2021 SR.PS 10. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR 11. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. 12. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER. 13. DRAFT DICTATION SHEETS ARE ATTACHED NO SR.PS