THE COMMNR OF INCOME TAX,WEST BENGAL III V. M/S.VARAS INTERNATIONAL (P) LTD

C.A. No.-008667-008668 - 1997

AI Insights

The case involves multiple civil appeals related to income tax disputes, where the Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal III, is the appellant against M/s. Varas International (P) Ltd. The core legal issue revolves around the interpretation of retrospective amendments to tax statutes. The Supreme Court of India, after hearing arguments from both sides, decided that the matter requires a deeper examination by a larger bench to clarify the legal standards for retrospective application of statutory amendments. This decision was prompted by the complexity and significance of the issue, as it affects the interpretation of several previous judgments.

• Counselvise Citation: [2001] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 523843 (SC)
• Appeal Type: Supreme court cases
• Pronouncement Date: 06-02-2001
• Other Referred Cases: Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay vs. Podar Cement Pvt.Ltd., Allied Motors (P) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Suwalal Anandilal Jain vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Brij Mohan Das Laxman Das vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: SUPREME COURT
• Department Lawyers: JOSEPH VELLAPALLY; PARAG TRIPATHI; HEMANT BATRA; NANDINI GORE; P K SINHA; ASHA BARMOLA; MADHUSUDHAN NAIK; SHANTA MAHALE; R C KOHLI; G SARANGAN; ANU MOHLA; ASHA NAIR; SANJAY KUNUR
• Assessee Lawyers: SOLI SORABJEE; M L VERMA; S GANESH; PRITISH KAPUR; R C VERMA; B V DAS; SUSHMA SURI
• Keywords: Income Tax; Legal interpretation; Retrospective amendment

Judgement Text

"Î) C.A.No. 8667-8668 OF 1997 .UP 10 2; Draft, smtst; -n -PA4 -dFX-NORMAL -y -e; dumbp L.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T....R ITEM NO.102 COURT NO. 2 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal Nos.8667-8668 of 1997@@ AACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC The Commnr. of Income Tax, West Bengal III Appellant (s) VERSUS M/s. Varas International (P) Ltd. Respondent (s) (With office report) With C.A.Nos.4490-91, 4286-87, 4571, 4488, 4489, 4857-58, 4907/2000@@ AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA (With office reports) And SLP(C) No.18984/2000 (With appln.for c/delay in filing SLP and Office Report)@@ AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA Date : 06/02/2001 These appeals were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P. BHARUCHA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DORAISWAMY RAJU HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE Y.K. SABHARWAL For Appellant (s) Mr. Soli J. Sorabjee,AG. Mr. M.L. Verma,Sr.Adv. Mr. S. Ganesh,Adv. Mr. Pritish Kapur, Adv. Mr. R.C. Verma,Adv. Mr. B.V.Balaram Das,Adv. Ms. Sushma Suri, Adv. For Respondent (s) Mr. Joseph Vellapally, Sr.Adv. CA 8667-68/97 Mr. Parag P.Tripathi,Sr.Adv. Mr. Hemant Batra,Adv. Ms. Nandini Gore, Adv. Mr. P.K. Sinha,Adv. Ms. Asha Barmola,Adv. CA 4489/2000: Mr. Madhusudhan R. Naik,Adv. Mr. Shanta Kumar Mahale,Adv. Mr. R.C. Kohli,Adv. CA 4286-87/2000, Mr. G.Sarangan,Sr.Adv. 4857-58/2000,4488/ Ms. Anu Mohla, Adv. 2000,4907/2000 & Ms. Asha G. Nair,Adv. SLP 18984/2000 Mr. Sanjay Kunur,Adv. ....2/- .PA -2- UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R ....L........I..........T.......T.......T.......T.......T................J .SP2 Mr. Soli J. Sorabjee, learned Attorney General appearing for the appellant, commenced his arguments at 11.25 a.m. and concluded at 2.25 p.m. Thereafter, Mr. Joseph Vellapally, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent, commenced his arguments and was on his legs when the court rose for the day. The matter remained part-heard. .SP1 (T.I. Rajput) (N.Annapurna) (S. Sen Gupta) Court Master Court Master Court Master -------------------------------------------------------------------------- PART-HEARD@@ CCCCCCCCCC ITEM NO.101 COURT NO.2 SECTION IIIA@@ AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA DATE: 07TH FEBRUARY, 2001@@ CCCCC AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA CORAM AND APPEARANCE: AS OF 06TH FEBRUARY, 2001.@@ CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R ....L........I..........T.......T.......T.......T.......T................J .SP2 We are of the view that these appeals should be heard by a Bench of five learned Judges to consider the question stated below and whether the judgments of benches of three learned Judges in the cases of Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay vs. Podar Cement Pvt.Ltd.@@ CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC [(1997) 5 SCC 482], Allied Motors (P) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of@@ CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC Income Tax [224 ITR 677], Suwalal Anandilal Jain vs. Commissioner of@@ CCCCCCCCCCC CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC CCCCCCCCCCCCCCC Income Tax [224 ITR 753] and the judgment of a bench of two learned@@ CCCCCCCCCCC Judges in Brij Mohan Das Laxman Das vs. Commissioner of Income Tax@@ CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC [223 ITR 825] need reconsideration. The question is: ...3/- .PA -3- For the amendement of a statute to be construed as being retrospective, should not the amended provision itself indicate, either in terms or by necessary implication, that it is to operate retrospectively? The papers shall be placed before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India for appropriate directions. .SP1 (N. Annapurna) (Shelly Sengupta) Court Master Court Master "