Shivajirao Nilangekar Patil SSK Ltd., Latur V. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax,

ITA 668/PUN/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0629 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 5 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-09-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 18-03-2019
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 07-04-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: ARISES OUT OF PASSED
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 40(a)(ia); 194C

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER . / ITA NO.668/PUN/2014 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 SHIVAJIRAO NILANGEKAR PATIL SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD. A/P. AMBULGA, TAL. NILANGA, DIST. LATUR PAN : AAAAS4651F VS. DCIT, CIRCLE-3, NANDED APPELLANT RESPONDENT / ORDER PER R.S.SYAL, VP : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE ARISES OUT OF THE ORDER PASS ED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), AURANGABAD ON 15-01- 2014 IN RELATION TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS A CO-OPERATIVE SUGAR FACTORY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING AND SALE OF SUGAR, ALCOHOL AND ITS BY- PRODUCTS. A RETURN WAS FILED DECLARING LOSS OF RS.13.45 C RORE AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED AT LOSS OF RS.4.49 CRORE AN D ODD. APPELLANT BY SHRI PRAMOD SHINGTE RESPONDENT BY SHRI PANKAJ GARG DATE OF HEARING 13-09-2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 16-09-2019 ITA NO.668/PUN/2014 SHIVAJIRAO NILANGEKAR PATIL SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD., 2 3. THE FIRST GROUND IS AGAINST THE CONFIRMATION OF DISALLOWANC E ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS CANE PRICE PAID TO SUGARCANE SUPPLIERS. 4. THE AO OBSERVED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PRO CEEDINGS THAT THE ASSESSEE PAID EXCESSIVE CANE PRICE, OVER AND ABO VE THE FAIR AND REMUNERATIVE PRICE (FRP) FIXED BY THE GOVERNMENT, TO ITS MEMBERS AS WELL AS NON-MEMBERS. ON BEING CALLED UPON TO JUSTIFY SUCH DEDUCTION, THE ASSESSEE GAVE CERTAIN EXPLANATION BY SU BMITTING THAT SUCH PAYMENT WAS SOLELY AND EXCLUSIVELY IN CONNECTION WITH THE BUSINESS AND THE ENTIRE AMOUNT WAS DEDUCTIBLE U/S.37(1) OF T HE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER ALSO CALLED `THE ACT). THE AO COMPUTED EXCESSIVE CANE PRICE PAID BOTH TO THE MEMBERS AN D NON- MEMBERS AT RS.6,26,25,768 AND MADE ADDITION FOR THE SAID SUM. THE LD. CIT(A) RESTRICTED THE SAID ADDITION ON THIS SCORE TO RS.96,54,850/-, AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS APPROACH ED THE TRIBUNAL. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND GONE THROUGH THE RELE VANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ISSUE OF PAYMENT OF EXCESSIVE P RICE ON PURCHASE OF SUGARCANE BY THE ASSESSES IS NO MORE RES INTEGRA IN VIEW OF THE RECENT JUDGMENT OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CIT VS. TASGAON TALUKA S.S.K. LTD. (2019) 103 TAXMANN.COM 57 (SC ) . THE ITA NO.668/PUN/2014 SHIVAJIRAO NILANGEKAR PATIL SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD., 3 HONBLE APEX COURT HAS ELABORATELY DEALT WITH THIS ISSUE. IT RECORDED THE FACTUAL MATRIX THAT THE ASSESSEE IN THAT CASE P URCHASED AND CRUSHED SUGARCANE AND PAID PRICE FOR THE PURCHASE DURING CRUSHING SEASONS 1996-97 AND 1997-98, FIRSTLY, AT THE TIM E OF PURCHASE OF SUGARCANE AND THEN, LATER, AS PER THE MANTR I COMMITTEE ADVICE. IT FURTHER NOTED THAT THE PRODUCTION OF SUGAR IS COV ERED BY THE ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT, 1955 AND THE GOVERNMENT ISSUED SUGAR CANE (CONTROL) ORDER, 1966, WHICH DEALS WITH ALL ASPE CTS OF PRODUCTION OF SUGARCANE AND SALES THEREOF INCLUDING THE PRIC E TO BE PAID TO THE CANE GROWERS. CLAUSE 3 OF THE SUGAR CANE (CO NTROL) ORDER, 1966 AUTHORIZES THE GOVERNMENT TO FIX MINIMUM SUGAR CANE PRICE. IN ADDITION, THE ADDITIONAL SUGARCANE PRICE IS ALSO PA YABLE AS PER CLAUSE 5A OF THE CONTROL ORDER, 1966. THE AO IN THA T CASE CONCLUDED THAT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PRICE PAID AS PE R CLAUSE 3 OF THE CONTROL ORDER, 1966 DETERMINED BY THE CENTRAL GOVER NMENT AND THE PRICE DETERMINED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT UNDER CLAUSE 5A OF THE CONTROL ORDER, 1966, WAS IN THE NATURE OF `DISTRIBUTIO N OF PROFITS AND HENCE NOT DEDUCTIBLE AS EXPENDITURE. HE, TH EREFORE, MADE AN ADDITION FOR SUCH SUM PAID TO MEMBERS AS WELL AS N ON- MEMBERS. WHEN THE MATTER FINALLY CAME UP BEFORE THE HONB LE ITA NO.668/PUN/2014 SHIVAJIRAO NILANGEKAR PATIL SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD., 4 APEX COURT, IT NOTED THAT CLAUSE 5A WAS INSERTED IN THE YEAR 1 974 ON THE BASIS OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS MADE BY THE BHARGAVA COMMISSION, WHICH RECOMMENDED PAYMENT OF ADDITIONAL PRICE A T THE END OF THE SEASON ON 50:50 PROFIT SHARING BASIS BETWEEN THE GROWERS AND FACTORIES, TO BE WORKED OUT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SECOND SCHEDULE TO THE CONTROL ORDER, 1966. THEIR LORDSH IPS NOTED THAT AT THE TIME WHEN ADDITIONAL PURCHASE PRICE IS DETERMINED/FIXE D UNDER CLAUSE 5A, THE ACCOUNTS ARE SETTLED AND THE PARTICULARS ARE PROVIDED BY THE CONCERNED CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY AS TO WHAT WILL BE THE EXPENDITURE AND WHAT WILL BE THE PROFIT ETC. CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT STATUTORY MINIMUM PRICE (SMP), DETERMINED UNDER CLAUSE 3 OF THE CONTROL ORDER, 1966, WHICH IS PAID AT THE BEGINNING OF THE SEASON, IS DEDUCTIBLE IN THE ENTIRETY AND THE DIFFERENCE BETWE EN SMP DETERMINED UNDER CLAUSE 3 AND SAP/ADDITIONAL PURCHASE PRICE DETERMINED UNDER CLAUSE 5A, HAS AN ELEMENT OF DISTRIBUTION OF PROFIT WHICH CANNOT BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION, THE HONBLE SUPREME CO URT REMITTED THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR CONSIDERING THE MODALITIES AND MANNER IN WHICH SAP/ADDITIONAL PURCHASE PRICE/FINA L PRICE IS DECIDED. HE HAS BEEN DIRECTED TO CARRY OUT AN EX ERCISE OF CONSIDERING ACCOUNTS/BALANCE SHEET AND THE MATERIAL SUPPLIED TO THE ITA NO.668/PUN/2014 SHIVAJIRAO NILANGEKAR PATIL SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD., 5 STATE GOVERNMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF DECIDING/FIXING THE FI NAL PRICE/ADDITIONAL PURCHASE PRICE/SAP UNDER CLAUSE 5A OF THE CON TROL ORDER, 1966 AND THEREAFTER DETERMINE AS TO WHAT AMOUNT WOU LD FORM PART OF THE DISTRIBUTION OF PROFIT AND THE OTHER AS DEDUCTIBLE EXPENDITURE. THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE HONBLE APEX COU RT ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- 9.4. ..... THEREFORE, TO THE EXTENT OF THE COMPON ENT OF PROFIT WHICH WILL BE A PART OF THE FINAL DETERMINATION OF SAP AN D/OR THE FINAL PRICE/ADDITIONAL PURCHASE PRICE FIXED UNDER CLAUSE 5A WOULD CERTAINLY BE AND/OR SAID TO BE AN APPROPRIATION OF PROFIT. HOWEVER, AT THE SAME TIME, THE ENTIRE/WHOLE AMOUNT OF DIFFER ENCE BETWEEN THE SMP AND THE SAP PER SE CANNOT BE SAID TO BE AN APPR OPRIATION OF PROFIT. AS OBSERVED HEREINABOVE, ONLY THAT PART/COMPONENT OF PROFIT, WHILE DETERMINING THE FINAL PRICE WORKED OUT/SAP/AD DITIONAL PURCHASE PRICE WOULD BE AND/OR CAN BE SAID TO BE AN APPROPRIATION OF PROFIT AND FOR THAT AN EXERCISE IS TO BE DONE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY CALLING UPON THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS, BALANCE SHEET AND THE MATERIAL SUPPLIED TO THE STAT E GOVERNMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF DECIDING/FIXING THE FINAL PRICE/ADDI TIONAL PURCHASE PRICE/SAP UNDER CLAUSE 5A OF THE CONTROL ORDER, 19 66. MERELY BECAUSE THE HIGHER PRICE IS PAID TO BOTH, MEMBERS A ND NON-MEMBERS, QUA THE MEMBERS, STILL THE QUESTION WOULD REMAIN WI TH RESPECT TO THE DISTRIBUTION OF PROFIT/SHARING OF THE PROFIT. SO F AR AS THE NON-MEMBERS ARE CONCERNED, THE SAME CAN BE DEALT WITH AND/OR CO NSIDERED APPLYING SECTION 40A (2) OF THE ACT, I.E., THE ASSE SSING OFFICER ON THE MATERIAL ON RECORD HAS TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE AMO UNT PAID IS EXCESSIVE OR UNREASONABLE OR NOT........ 9.5 THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WILL HAVE TO T AKE INTO ACCOUNT THE MANNER IN WHICH THE BUSINESS WORKS, THE MODALITIES AND MANNER IN WHICH SAP/ADDITIONAL PURCHASE PRICE/FINAL PRICE ARE DECIDED AND TO DETERMINE WHAT AMOUNT WOULD FORM PART OF THE PROFIT AND AFTER UNDERTAKING SUCH AN EXERCISE WHATEVER IS THE PROFIT COMPONENT IS TO BE CONSIDERED AS SHARING OF PROFIT/DISTRIBUTION OF PROFIT AND THE REST OF THE AMOUNT IS TO BE CONSIDERED AS DEDUCTIBLE AS EXP ENDITURE. ITA NO.668/PUN/2014 SHIVAJIRAO NILANGEKAR PATIL SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD., 6 6. BOTH THE SIDES ARE UNANIMOUS THAT THE EXTANT ISSUE OF DEDUCTION OF PAYMENT OF EXCESSIVE PRICE FOR PURCHASE OF SUGARCAN E, RAISED IN THE APPEAL UNDER CONSIDERATION, IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE AFORESAID JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENT, WE SET-ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THIS SC ORE AND REMIT THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF A.O FOR DECIDING IT AFRESH AS PER LAW IN CONSONANCE WITH THE ARTICULATION OF LAW BY THE HONBLE SUPREM E COURT IN THE AFORENOTED JUDGMENT. THE AO WOULD ALLOW DEDU CTION FOR THE PRICE PAID UNDER CLAUSE 3 OF THE SUGAR CANE (CON TROL) ORDER, 1966 AND THEN DETERMINE THE COMPONENT OF DISTRIBUTION OF PR OFIT EMBEDDED IN THE PRICE PAID UNDER CLAUSE 5A, BY CONSIDERING THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS, BALANCE SHEET AND OTHER RELEVANT MATE RIAL SUPPLIED TO THE STATE GOVERNMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF DECIDING/FI XING THE FINAL PRICE/ADDITIONAL PURCHASE PRICE/SAP UNDER THIS CLAUSE. T HE AMOUNT RELATABLE TO THE PROFIT COMPONENT OR SHARING OF PROFIT/DISTRIBUTION OF PROFIT PAID BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH WOULD BE APPROPRIATION OF INCOME, WILL NOT BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION, WHILE THE REMAINING AMOUNT, BEING A CHARGE AGAINST THE INCOME, WILL BE CONSIDERED AS DEDUCTIBLE EXPENDITURE. ITA NO.668/PUN/2014 SHIVAJIRAO NILANGEKAR PATIL SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD., 7 7. AT THIS STAGE, IT IS MADE CLEAR THAT THE DISTRIBUTION OF PRO FITS CAN ONLY BE QUA THE PAYMENTS MADE TO THE MEMBERS. IN SO FAR AS THE NON-MEMBERS ARE CONCERNED, THE CASE WILL BE CONSIDERED A FRESH BY THE AO BY APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(2) OF THE A CT, AS HAS BEEN HELD BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT SUPRA. NEEDLESS TO SAY, THE ASSESSEE WILL BE ALLOWED A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING BY THE AO IN SUCH FRESH DETERMINATION OF THE ISSUE. 8. THE SECOND GROUND IS AGAINST THE CONFIRMATION OF DISALLO WANCE OF RS.36,294/- ON ACCOUNT OF SUGAR SOLD TO MEMBERS AT C ONCESSIONAL PRICE. 9. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND GONE THROUGH THE R ELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE AO MADE ADDITION O F THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE MARKET PRICE AND THE CONCESSIONAL P RICE AT WHICH SUGAR (FINAL PRODUCT) WAS GIVEN TO FARMERS AND CANE GROWERS. IN THIS REGARD, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN CONSID ERED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KRISHNA SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LIMITED (2012) 27 TAXMANN.COM 162 (SC). VIDE JUDGMENT DATED 25-09-2012, THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT NOTICED THAT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE AVERAGE PRICE OF SUGAR SOLD IN THE MARKET AND THE PRICE OF SUGAR SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE TO ITS M EMBERS AT ITA NO.668/PUN/2014 SHIVAJIRAO NILANGEKAR PATIL SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD., 8 CONCESSIONAL RATE WAS TAXED BY THE DEPARTMENT UNDER THE HE AD APPROPRIATION OF PROFIT. THE HONBLE SUMMIT COURT REMITTED TH E MATTER TO THE CIT(A) FOR CONSIDERING, INTER ALIA ,: WHETHER THE ABOVEMENTIONED PRACTICE OF SELLING SUGAR AT CONCESSIONAL RATE HAS BECOME THE PRACTICE OR CUSTOM IN THE CO-OPERATIVE SUGAR IND USTRY?; AND WHETHER ANY RESOLUTION HAS BEEN PASSED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT SUPPORTING THE PRACTICE?; THE CIT(A) WOULD ALSO CONSIDER ON WHAT BASIS THE QUANTITY OF THE FINAL PRODUCT, I.E. SUGAR, IS BEING FIXED FOR SALE TO FARMERS/CANE GROWERS/MEMBERS EAC H YEAR ON MONTH-TO-MONTH BASIS, APART FROM OTHERS FROM DIWALI? THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION CAN BE DECIDED BY AN APPROPRIATE LOWER AUTHORITY ONLY ON THE TOUCHSTONE OF THE RELEVANT FACTORS NOTED IN THE ABOVE JUDGMENT. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, IT WOULD BE JUST A ND FAIR IF THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THIS SCORE IS SET ASIDE AND THE M ATTER IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF AO, INSTEAD OF TO THE CIT(A), FOR F RESH CONSIDERATION AS TO WHETHER THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE AVERA GE PRICE OF SUGAR SOLD IN THE MARKET AND THAT SOLD TO MEMBERS AT CON CESSIONAL RATE IS APPROPRIATION OF PROFIT OR NOT, IN THE LIGHT OF THE DIREC TIONS GIVEN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF KRISHNA SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LIMITED (SUPRA) . RESTORATION TO THE AO ITA NO.668/PUN/2014 SHIVAJIRAO NILANGEKAR PATIL SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD., 9 IS NECESSITATED BECAUSE, FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF TASGAON TALUKA S.S.K. LTD. (SUPRA) , WE HAVE REMITTED THE ISSUE OF PAYMENT OF EXCESSIVE PRICE TO THE FILE OF AO, AND AS SUCH, THE INSTANT ISSUE CANNOT BE SENT TO LD. CI T(A) AS IT WOULD AMOUNT TO SIMULTANEOUSLY SENDING ONE PART OF THE SAME ASSESSMENT ORDER TO THE AO AND OTHER TO THE CIT(A), WHICH IS NOT APPROPRIATE. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 10. THE ONLY OTHER ISSUE WHICH SURVIVES IN THE APPEAL IS AGA INST THE CONFIRMATION OF DISALLOWANCE OF RS.2,64,35,713/- ON AC COUNT OF DISALLOWANCE U/S.40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. 11. THE FACTS CONCERNING THIS GROUND ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE DEBITED RS.2.64 CRORE ODD ON ACCOUNT OF H & T PAYMENT MADE TO HARVESTORS AND TRANSPORTERS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) OBSERVED THAT SUCH PAYMENTS WERE MADE WITHOUT DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE. O N BEING CALLED UPON TO EXPLAIN ITS STAND, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT PAYMENT MADE TO EACH HARVESTOR AND TRANSPORTER WAS BELOW THE STIPU LATED LIMIT. THE AO INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) AND MADE THE ABOVE DISALLOWANCE. THE LD. CIT(A) AFFIRMED THE SAME. ITA NO.668/PUN/2014 SHIVAJIRAO NILANGEKAR PATIL SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD., 10 12. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND GONE THROUGH THE RELE VANT MATERIAL ON RECORD, IT IS SEEN FROM THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEF ORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE MADE PAYM ENT TO VARIOUS LABOURERS AND HARVESTERS THROUGH GROUP LEADERS, WHO WERE ALSO MEMBERS OF THE LABOUR GROUP AND EACH GROUP CONSIS TED OF 15- 20 GENTS AND 15-20 LADIES WITH PAYMENT TO EACH INDIVIDUAL AT LES S THAN RS.3,000/- TO RS.4,000/- PER MONTH. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT NO PAYMENT DURING THE YEAR TO SUCH INDIVIDUALS EXCEEDED RS.50,000/-. IT IS NOTED THAT THE HONBLE JURISDIC TIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. DWARKADHEESH SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD. VIDE ITS JUDGMENT DATED 08-01-2018 IN ITA NO.480/2015 HAS HELD THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C ARE NOT ATTRACTED IN R ESPECT OF PAYMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, A SAKHAR KARKHANA A S IS THE ASSESSEE ALSO UNDER CONSIDERATION, TO MUKADAMS AND TRAN SPORTERS. AS THE ASSESSEE MADE PAYMENT TO GROUP LABOURERS AND SUC H ANNUAL PAYMENTS DID NOT EXCEED RS.50,000/- PER INDIVIDUAL, WHIC H AT THE MATERIAL TIME WAS THE THRESHOLD FOR INVOCATION OF SECTION 194C, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. DWARKADHEESH SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD. (SUPRA), WE HOLD THAT THE ITA NO.668/PUN/2014 SHIVAJIRAO NILANGEKAR PATIL SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD., 11 DISALLOWANCE U/S.40(A)(IA) HAS BEEN WRONGLY SUSTAINED. WE , THEREFORE, ORDER TO DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE. 13. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16 TH SEPTEMBER, 2019. SD/- SD/- (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) (R.S.SY AL) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE P RESIDENT PUNE; DATED : 16 TH SEPTEMBER, 2019 / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT; 2. / THE RESPONDENT; 3. THE CIT(A), AURANGABAD 4. 5. 6. THE CIT, AURANGABAD , , / DR B, ITAT, PUNE; / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // SENIOR P RIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE ITA NO.668/PUN/2014 SHIVAJIRAO NILANGEKAR PATIL SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD., 12 DATE 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 13-09-2019 SR.PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 16-09-2019 SR.PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. JM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS SR.PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR.PS 7. DATE OF UPLOADING ORDER SR.PS 8. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.PS 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 10. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE A.R. 11. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER. *