M/S SRI MURUGAN GHEE STORE, HYDERABAD. V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, HYD AND ANOTHER

ITTA/75/2006

AI Insights

The case involves M/S Sri Murugan Ghee Store, which appealed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad, concerning the disallowance of certain cash payments exceeding Rs. 20,000. The payments were made to two companies for the purchase of cream, which the appellant argued should be exempt under Rule 6DD(f)(ii) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The Tribunal and the lower authorities found that the companies were not dairy farmers but intermediaries, and thus the exemption did not apply. The High Court upheld this decision, emphasizing that the payments were made to intermediaries and not directly to the producers of dairy products.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 753140 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 09-11-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Attar Singh Gurmukh Singh v. Income Tax Officer, Ludhiana, Commissioner of Income Tax, Orissa v. Mloo Supply Co., Commissioner of Income Tax v. Pehlaj Rai Daryanmals, Smt. Chanchal Dogra v. Income Tax Officer
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961, Income Tax Rules, 1962
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: J V PRASAD
• Assessee Lawyers: KARTHIK RAMANA PUTTAMREDDY
• Keywords: Cash Payment Disallowance; Dairy product procurement; Rule 6DD(f)(ii) exemption
• Section: 40A(3); 260-A

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY Appeal under Section 260 -A of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 against the orderdated 27-12-2005 in l.T.A. No. 1094 IHydl 2004, forAssessmentyear2001- 02 on the file of the lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, A- Bench, Hyderabad preferred against the order of the Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals) -V , Hyderabad dated 03-09-2004 in l.T.A.No. 0047lffO - 5 (1/CIT(AFV/2004-05 preferred against the order of the lncome Tax Officer, Ward -5 (1), Hyderabad dated 3i-03-2004 in GIR No. s-340 - Between: M/S Sri Murugan Ghee Store, 4-5-822, Opp. Badi Chowdi Road, Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad - 500 027, ( Represented by its Partner Mr V.S. Jawahar Raj) ...APPELLANT/ Appellant AND 1 . The lncome Tax Officer, Ward 5-[1], Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad - 500 001 2. The Commissioner of lncome Tax, No.4, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad ...RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS ITTAMP. NO: 98 OF 2006 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the proceedings for the recovery of the arrears demand of Rs. 4,33,777l- till the appeal disposed of. Counsel for the Appellant: SRI. KARTHIK RAMANA PUTIAMREDDY Counsel for Respondents: SRI J. V. PRASAD SC FOR INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT l INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO: 75 OF 2006 i I i I The Court made the following JUDGMENT: 2 THE IION'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHITYAN AND THE IION,BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDD'Y I.T.T.A.No.75 of 2OO6 JUDGMEN'II: tPer tLLe Hon'bte the Chief Justice Ujjal BhuVa ) Hear,:. Mr. Karthik Ramana Puttamreddy, learncd counsel fc, - the appellant and Mr. J.V.Prasad, learned Standing t-)ounsel for Income Tax Department appearing for the res:,ondents. 2. This ;rppeal has been filed under Section 260-A of the Income Ta:< Act, 1961 (briefly, \"the Act\" hereirraftt:r) b1, the iISSCSSCE - ssailing the legality and validity of I he ordcr rlatcd 27. t2.2OOS passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench 'A', Hyderabad (Tribunal) ln I.T.A.No.l19a/Hyd/2004 for the assessment I'e:Lr 200 1- '2002. 3. We lind from the docket proceedings that on I 3.03.20Ct,: stay was granted by this Court subj ect t.o pa ,ment ,rf 5O7o of the demanded ta-x. Tt-rercafter, the appeal u',,.s admitted on 17.04.2006, but no substantial question o1' lavt, was framed. I I J 4. From the memo of appeal we lind that appellant has proposed a number of questions as substantial questions of law. However, we are of the view that the follou'ing two questions would cover the controversy in question: i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Tribunal was justified in affirming the disallowance made by the assessing officer in payments beyond Rs.20,0O0.0O in cash in terms of Rule 6DD(f)(ii) of the Income Tax Ru1es, 1962 (briefly, \"the Rules\" hereinafter), in other words, denying the benefit of exemption undcr the aloresaid provision? i0 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Tribunal was justified in holding that the benefit of exemption contained in Rute 6DD(f)(ii) of the Rules would not be available u,hen total payment made exceeds Rs.20,O00-O0? 5. Appellant is an assessee under the Act having the status of a firm. It is engaged in the business of sale of butter and a-lso converting butter into ghee for sale Assessment year under consideration is 200 1-2002 . 6. By the assessment order dated 31.03.2004, assessing officer noted that the appellant had made certain pal ments in cash beyond Rs.20,000.00 to two companies but sought / -i exemption by applying Rule 6DD(f)(ii) of the Rules Referring t,: the provisions contained in Section 4OA(3) of the Act ancl Rule 6DD(0(ii) of the Rules, the cash payments made to the two companies from which assessee had purchased dairy product i.e., crearn, exceeding Rs.20,000.00 was disallowed at the rate of 2O7o ald was added to t he total income of the appellant u,hich was quantilied at Rs.9,58,395.00. 7. In agrpeal before the first appellate authoritv i.e., Commissioner of Income Tax (Appea,ls)-V, Hyderabad (briefly, \"the CIT(A)\" hereinafter), the disallou,ance made by the assess,:ng officer under the above head was conlirmed vide the orrler dated 03.09.2004. 8. Therr:after, appellant preferred further appeal before the Tribu:rai. By the order daLed 27.12.2OO5, Tribunal took the view that Rule 6DD(i)(ii) of the Rules would be applicable only if the seller carries on dairy farming and not othenvise. Tribunal helcl that the ts.o companies from ,,which apprellant had purchased cream were not carrying on the business ol dairy farming. Therefore, this ground of t t . appeal was rejected by the Tribunal. On the second ground, Tribunal held firstly that incurring of expenditure by the assessee was above Rs.20,000.00 and splitting the payment in smaller amounts would not take the case out of the mischief of Section 40A(3) of the Act. That apart, Tribunal held that appellant had factuall-v failed to show that the certificate given by the auditors is wrong. Therefore, this contention of the appellant was also rejected. 9. Hence, this appeal. 10. l,earned counsel for the appellant furnished a compilation comprising relevant portion of the statute and citations and submits therefrom that a careful analysis of Rule 6DD(f)(ii) of the Rules would go to show that cash payments made by the appellant to the trr'o companies for procurement of cream would be entitled to the benefit thereunder. He particularly emphasised on tlre language of clause (!(ii) of Rule 6DD of the Rules and submits that the word \"dairy\" is not prefixed or suffixed bl anv explanation or elaboration to restrict the same to dairl' farming. I o Therefore, providing a restrictive meaning to the above expression rv:,uld be contrary to the legislative intent. In support of strch contention, he has placed reliance on the decision ol t'- e Supreme Court in Attar Singh Gurmukh Singh v. Inr:ome Tax Offrcer, Ludhianal. He has also taken us to Si:ction 40A(3) of the Act and submits that on a conj oint rea,ling of Section 4OA(3) of the Act and Rule 6DD(0(ii) of t r-re Rules, it .\"r,ould be evident that the revenue authorities ,r,ere in error in denying the benefit of Rule 6DD(f)(ii) of the Rules to the appellant for individual cash transactions above Rs.20.000.00. To support his contention l rat it is not the entirety of the tralsactions which is to l)e takcn into account for the purpose of Rule 6DD(0(ii) ol the Rules but each individual transaction, learned counsel for the appellant relied upon a decision of the Orissa igh Court ir-r Commissioner of Income Tax, Orissa v. ltloo Supply Co.2 SLP filed against the above decision u,as; disnrissed b-v the Supreme Court, he submits. 1 1. Reverting back to the order of the Tribunal, learned ,t counsel for t}-re appellant submits that the Tribunal fell in '1r99t;+ scc 185 t 1to8o1 tzt Il R tr80 orissa : t!r79 scc online ori 167 l 7 error in relying upon the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Pehlaj Rai Daryanmals inasmuch as the decision of the Allahabad High Court was rendered in the context of cash payments, not being made directly to the producers of forest produce, but to brokers or to timber suppiiers which cannot be equated u,ith the factual scenario of the present appeal 12. On the other hald, Mr. J.V.Prasad, learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents relied upon the decision ol Himachal Pradesh High Court in Smt. Chanchal Dogra v. Income Tax Officer+ and submits therefrom that a milk producers union cannot be considered to be producer of mi1k. It is the individual member n,ho can only be a producer of milk. He has meticulousll' taken us to the orders passed by the assessing officer, CIT(A) and that of the Tribuna-l and submits that the proposed substantial questions of law do ot arise in thc facts and circumstances of the case. He further submits that admittedly appellant had purchased cream from tno companies r.l,hich in turn had pu'ichased r (199 t) 19o trR 242 (Alt) o ZO|Z 1Z+21 CrtrrTR (:16 i I I I 8 milk from th e actual producers of milk. The two companies u'ere not engaged in dairy farming. Appellant's cash p:rymen,s to the two companies therefore cannot be said to be pal ments made to dairy farmers. In that view of the matter, appellant is not entitled to the benefit ol Rule 6DD(0(ii) of -he Rules. Insofar contention ol learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal had erred 1n considering ttre totality of the transactions instead of each individual tr::nsaction, he submits from the assessment order that a r;sessing oflicer very clearly mentioned that cash pavments exceeding Rs.20,000.00 for each time r.r'ould attract provisions under Section a0A(3) of the Act. Thr:rcfore, th,s question does not arise at a-11 in the lacts of 13. Submi-sions made by iearned counsel lor the parties have receive:l the due consideration of the Court 14 . To appreciate the rival contentions it q,ould be appositr- to r, dvert to the statutory provisions at the outset Wc ma-r, rrLention that Section 4OA(3) of the Act has thi s case. 9 undergone several amendments. The said Section as it stood at the relevant point of time is as under: \"Where the assessee incurs any expenditure in respect of which payment is made, aJter such date (not being later than the 31st day of March, 1969), as may be specified in this behalf by the Central Government by notification, in the Official Ga\"Ette, in a sum excecding two thousand five hundred rupees otherwise than by a crossed cheque drawn on a bank or by a crossed bank draft, such expenditure shall not be allowed as a deduction :. .....\" 15. The second proviso to Section 404.(3) read as under: \"Provided further that no disallowance under this sub-section shall be made where any payment in a sum exceeding two thousand five hundred rupees is made otherwise than by a crossed cheque drawn on a bank or by a crossed bank draft, in such cases and under such circumstances as may be prescribed, having regard to the nature and extent of banking facilities available, considerations of business expediency and other relevant factors.\" 16. Thus, the Section as it stood at the relevant time says that u,here an assessee incurs any expenditure in respect of arry payment in a sum exceeding two thousand five / hundred rupees otherwise than by a crossed cheque drau,n on a bank or by a crossed bank draft, such expdnditure shall not be allowed as a deduction. As per the second I I I t0 proviso, no disallowance under sub-section (3) would be made wher',: any payment in a sum exceeding two thousand five hundred rupees is made otherwise than by a crossed chr:que drawn on a bank or by a crossed bank draft, in su<:h cases and under such circumstances as may be prescrib:,d, having regard to the nature ald extent of banking fa<:ilities available, consideratlons oi business expediency and other relevant factors 16. 1. It may be mentioned that the amount of two thousand five hundred rupees u'as increased to trventy thousand r'-rpees. 17. Rule {jDD of the Rules is the appropriate Rule in terms of thr' aforesaid provision. Rule 6DD of the Rules as it stood at l.lee relevant point of time read as under: \"R.6DD. Cases and circumstances in which payment in a sum exceeding twenty thousand rupees may be made otherwise than by an account payee cheque drawn on a baak on account payee bank draft - No disallorvance under sub-section (3) of Section 4OA sha.ll be macle where any payment in a sum e ceeding tq,enty thousand rupees is made othcnvisc than b1,an itccount payee ,rheque drawn on a battk or accoultl 1t;r_r,ee bank draft in the cascs and circuntstanccs spccilied hereu:r der namely:- t I (a) where (i) (ii) (ii, (iv) (v) (\"i) (vii) ll the payment is made to - the Reserve Bank of India or any banking company as defined in clause (c) of section 5 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of l9a9); the State Bank of India or any subsidiary bank as defined in section 2 of the State Bank of India (Subsidiary Banks) Act, 1959 (38 of 1959); any co-operative bank or land mortgage bank; any primary agricultural credit society as dehned in clause {cii} of scction 2 of the Reserve Bank of lndia Act, 1934 12 of 1934), or any primary crcdit society as defined in clause (civ) of that scction; the Life Insurance Corporation of India established under section 3 ol the Life Insurance Corporation Act, l95tr (31 of 1956); ttre Industrial Finance Corporation of India established under section 3 of the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948 (15 of 1948); the Industria-l Credit and Investment Corporation of India Ltd; the Industrial Development Bank of India established undcr section 3 of the Industrial Dcvclopment Bar-rk of lndia Act, 1964 (18 of 1964); (viii) I l (ix) the Unit Trust of India established under section 3 of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963); (x) the Madras tndustrial Investment Corporation Ltd., Madras; (xi) The Andhra Pradesh Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., Hyderabad; (xii) the Kerala State Industria,l Development Corporation Ltd., Trivandru m; (xriil the State Industrial arld Investment Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd., Bombay: (riv) the l)unjab State Industrial Devclopment Corporation Ltd., Chandigarh; (>n,) the National Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., New Delhi; (xvi) the Mysore State Industrial Investment and Development Corporation Ltd., Bangetlorc; (xvii) the Har)'ana State Industrial Dcvelopment Corporation Ltd., Chandigarh; (xvti) any State Financial Corporation establishetl under section 3 of the State Fin:rncial Corporation Act, 1951 (63 of 195 r); {b) where the pa}'mcnt is made to Governrirent iurd, under thr rxles framed by it, such t t I ll payrnent is required to be made in legal tender; (c) where under arry contract entered into by the assessee before the 1st day of April, 1969, the payment is required to be made in legal tender; (d) where the payment is made by- (il any letter of credit arrangements through a bank; (ii) a mail or telegraphic transfer through a bank; (iii) a book adjustment from any account in a bank to any other account in that or any other bank; (iv) a bill of exchange made payable only to a bank. Explanolion:- For the purposes of this clause and clause (h), the term \"bank\" means any bank, banking company or society referred to in sub- clauses (i) to (iv) of clause (a) and includes any bank not being a banking company as dehned in clause (c) of section 5 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949l., whether incorporated or not, which is established outside India; (e) wherc the pavment is made by way of adjustment against the amount of any liability incurred by the payee for any goods supplicd or services rcndered by the assessee to such pa_vee; d -. I l I I4 t) where the payment is made for t1e purchase of- {i) agricultural or forest produce; or (ii) The produce of anirnal husbandry (including hides and skins) or dairy or poultry farming; or (iii) fish or frsh products; or (iv) the products of horticulture or apiculture, to the cultivator, grower or producer of such articles, produce or products; (g) where the payment is made for the purchase of the products manufactured or processed without the aid of power in a cottage industry, to the producer of such products; h) where the payment is made in a village or town, which on the date of such payment is not served by any bank, to any person who ordinarily resides, or is carrying on anv business, profession or vocation, in any such village or town; (i) where any payment by way of gratuity, retrenchment compensation or similar terminal benefit, is made to al employee of the assessee or the heirs of any such empioyee on or in connection with the retrenchment, resignation, discharge or death of such employee, if the income chargeable under the head \"Salaries\" of the employee in respect of the hnancial year in which such retiremcnl.. t resignation, discharge or death look plac,' or' 15 the immediately preceding financia-l year did not exceed Rs.7,500; fi) where the payment is made by an assessee by way of salary to his employee after deducting the income tax from salary in accordance with the provision of section 192 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and when such employee- (A) is temporarily posted for a continuous period of Iifteen days or more in a place other than his normal place of duty or on a ship; and (B) does not maintain any account in any ba,nk at such place of ship; (k) where the payment was required to be made on a day on which the banks were closed either on account of holiday or strike; (l) where the payment is made by any person to his agent who is required to make payment in cash for goods or services on behalf of such person; (m)where the pa5ment is made by an authorized dealer or a money changer against purchase of foreign currency or travellers cheques in the normal course of his business. Explanation-- For the purpose of this clause, the expression 'authorised dea.ler' or 'money changer' means a person authorize d as an authorized dealer or money changer to deal in foreigrr currency or foreign exchange under any law for the time being in force.\" I I l6 18. A rearling of Rule 6DD of the Rules, as extracted above, would go to show that no disallowance under sub- section (3) of Section 40A of the Act shall be made where arly paymerrt in a sum exceeding Rs.2O,OO0.OO was made otherwise 1.ran by an account payee cheque drawn on a bank or zrccount payee bank dra-ft in the cases and circumstan,les specified thereunder. As per clause (f)(ii) of Rule 6DD of the Rules, where the payment rs made for the purpose of agricultural or forest produce or the produce of animal hu.bandry including hides and skins or dairy or poultry farrning, to the cultivator, gro {/er or producer of such articles, produce or products, the restrictions or disallowan:e under Section 4OA(3) ol the Act rvould not be attracted. In other words, arry pavment made for the purchase of dairy products to the culti rator, grower or producer c,f such articles produced or products i.e., dairy products, then the cash payments made above Rs.20,000.t)0 would be eligible for the benefit under Rule 6DD of the Rules. In such cases there u'ould be no disallowan<:e of cash payments above Rs.20.000.00. Thus, 1 to avail ttre said benelit the pa,vment u'orrld have to be t7 made to a cultivator or to a grower or to a producer of dairy produce or products. 19. In the instant case, appeilant had made the purchases of crearn from two companies called M/s. Heritage Foods India (P) Ltd., and M/s. Cannemara Dairy Products Pvt. Ltd. It is on record that these two companies had in turn purchased milk from the cattle farmers. Question for consideration is whether cash pa5ments made to these two companies can be termed as payments made to a cultivator, grower or producer of dairy produce or products. On the facts before us it is evident that these two companies are purchasers of intermediaries from the actual farmers, namely, milk which is processed into cream which in turn is purchased by the appellant for the purpose of converting cream into butter and ghee and thereafter selling in the market. The two compalies cannot be said to be a cultivator or grower or producer of milk or cream which are undoubtedly dairy products. In / tl:e circumstances, any payment made to the t$,o compalies would not be a payment made to a cultlvator or grower or producer of a dairy product so as to bring the ll{ cash tran:;action within the mischief of Rule 6DD(f)(ii) of the Rules. If that be the position, no fault can be found with the 'ien, taken by the Tribunal in affirming the disallou,anr:e made by the assessing oflicer as confirmed by crT(A). 20. In vi,:w of our above finding, it may not be necessaly for us trr an s 'er the second question so framed. Nonetheler;s, we find from the assessment order that assessing ,rfficer had considercd each individual payment made bv t:re appellant excceding Rs.20,OO0.0O and not the sum tota. of the pa- 'ment. Relevant portion of the assessment order reads as under: \" 13. While examining the hrm's books of account for the F.Y 20OO-OI, it is found that the firm has main purclrases from two companies M/s. Heritage Foods & M/s. tJannemara Dairy. Thc firm is making pa1ments to th( sc two limited companies by way of cash and cheqrre. The total cash payments exceeding Rs.2C,O0O/ for each time uill attract provisions u/s 40A(l; of the Income Ta-x Act, During the year under consirteration the total cash payments exceeding Rs.2C, 000/- on each tirnc is worked out at Rs.42 7 2.9251 towards M / s C:urnemara Dairy Products Pvt. Ltcl., and Rs.5, 19,0.50/- tou,ards M/s Heritage Foodr; (lndia) l t. Ltd. Tlic cash pavments exceeding I?s.2[ t)OO/- is nlso worked out arnd arrived the above l9 amounts and attached to the audit report submitted along with return of income. 14. Accordingly a show cause notice was issued to the frrm on 12-O3-2OO4, stating the facts that the firm is making cash payments towards its purchases from M/s Cannemara Dairy Products Pvt. Ltd., and M/s Heritage Foods (I) Ltd., which exceeding Rs.20,0OO/-. As per income tax provisions u/s 40A{3), if the assessee made payments in excess of Rs.2O,00O/- by way of cash which attracts disallowance of 2oo/o on such payments. In the Audit report submitted along with return of income, it was a-lso mentioned that the assessee-hrm has made cash payments during the financial year 2OO0-01, exceeding Rs.2O,OOO/- to the parties M/s Cannemara Dairy Products Pvt. Ltd., and M/s Heritage Foods (i) Ltd., to the extent of Rs.42,72,9251- and Rs.5,19,050/- respectively. 15. lt is clear that the hrm is making cash paSrments to the Limited Companies. cven these companies have their own bank accounts. There is no necessit5r for this firm to make paymcnts in cash when both the parties have bank accounts. As per Income Tax Rules it is clearly mentioned in Rule 6DD that certain exemptions ., have been givcn to the assessee's in certain circumstances for clarming exemption on cash pa5rments exceeding Rs.20,OOO/ -. 16. In t1-e present circumstances the assessee-firm is not eligible for cxcmption on payment of cash exceeding Rs.2O,OOO/ Hence. 2ooio of such cash pa)rments exceeding Rs.20,0OO/ - is proposed for disallowance.\" I / I Fa '21. Ir-r tht: above factual backdrop, it lvas rea1ly not reVen Lte necessar]' l',rr the Tribunal to have held that incurring of expenditurr: by the assessee was above Rs.20,000.00 and splitting th,, payment into smaller amounts would not take the case out of the mischief of Section 4OA(3) of the Act. Br: that as it mav, such observation of the Tribunal rvould rezrllv not nrake any materia.l difference to the fact scenario on the basi -- of u,hich the question has been proposed. 22. ln the circumstances, both the questions are ansnered ,gainst the assessee and in favour ol the ')4\". 1'l.rc a1:,peal is accordingly dismissed. Misce..aneous applications pending, if any, shall stancl closer:. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Sdi-B.S.CHIRANJEEVI JorNrfEGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER One Fair Copy to tlre Hon'ble The Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan (For His LordshiPs Kind Perusal) And One Fair Copy to tl-e Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V' Bhaskar Reddy (For l'lis Lordships Kind Perusal) To, 1. The Income Tax Appelldte Tribunal, A- Bench, Hyderabad. 2. The Commi:;sioner of lncome Tax (Appeals) -V, Hyderabad. 3 8 LR Copie:; 4. The Under Ilecretary, Union of lndia Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Aifairs, New Delhi 5. The Seciet;r-y, Telangana High Court Advocates Association' Library, High Court l:,uildings HYderabad 6 One CC to Sri Karthik Ramana Puttamreddy, Advocate [OPUC] 7. One CC to Sri J. V. Prasad, SC for lncome Tax Department IOPUC] 8. Two 6P Qelries Y ^ t.. HIGH COUR\"I| DATED:0911112022 t,.R. COPY TO BE NIARKED JUDGMENT ITTA.No.75 r:rf 2006 DISMISSINCi THE APPEAL WITHOUT CIf,STS ::-ii'l S'ln r{: 15 DEI , :2 z (:; .i' o n p "