C.I.T., RAIPUR vs. BASTAR KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK HATKA
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the appeal filed by the revenue is not maintainable in the absence of clearance from the Committee on Disputes (COD). The reasoning was based on a previous decision of the same court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Bilaspur Vs. M/s SECL Bilaspur, which referred to a Madras High Court ruling. In that precedent, it was held that appeals by the revenue are not entertainable without COD clearance when the dispute is between the Central Government and a public sector undertaking. Applying this principle to the present case, where the dispute is between the Central Government and a public sector undertaking of the Central Government (the respondent bank), the court found the appeal not entertainable. The appeal was dismissed, with liberty reserved for the applicant to approach the court after obtaining clearance from the COD.
What were the facts?
The appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur, against an order dated May 15, 2000, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Nagpur Bench. The appeal was directed against the Tribunal's decision on substantial questions of law. The revenue's counsel submitted a written communication from the Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur, stating that the respondent, Bastar Kshetriya Gramin Bank, was constituted under the Regional Rural Bank Act, 1976, and is a public sector undertaking with shareholding from the Central Government, State Government, and State Bank of India. The High Court was informed that the respondent is a public sector undertaking of the Central Government.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the Income Tax Appeal filed by the revenue is maintainable in the absence of clearance from the Committee on Disputes (COD) when the dispute involves the Central Government and a public sector undertaking of the Central Government. Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee. The appeal was decided based on a submission by the revenue and a prior High Court ruling. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through its counsel, presented information regarding the respondent's status as a public sector undertaking of the Central Government. The revenue implicitly sought to have the appeal heard on its merits, but the core issue that arose was the maintainability of the appeal.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
0 u HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR D.B. HON’BLE SHRI DHIRENDRA MISHRA & H¢N’BLE' SHR? RN. CHANDRAKAR‘ JJ INCOME TAX APPEAL N0. 2 of 2000 The Commissioner of innome Tax, Raipur‘ Versus Applicant Bastar Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Katkachbra, Jagdaipur, Chhattisgarh. Present : Shri Rajaev Shrivastava, counsel for the applicant-revenue. .m... ORAL JUDGMENIT (8* September, zoioy Per Dhirandm Mishm .l lecord. Heard on !A No.01, application for taking additional document on The application is allowed and documentiis taken on record. y.‘ This Income tax appeal ls directed against the order dated 15 5 2000 passed by the lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal Nagpur Bench at Nagpur under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act 1961 on the substantial questtons of law as detailed at the foot of the memo of appeal Shrl Rajeev Shrwastava learned counsel appeanng for the apphcant- revenue submits that he has received a written communication dated 6 9 2010 from the Commissmner of Income Tax Raipuri‘ from which it reveals that the respondent-Regional Rural Bank has been constituted in terms of sub-clause (1) & (2) of Clauses 5 & 6 of the Regional Rural Bank Act 1976 and the same is a public sector undertaking of the Central Govemment havmg 50% share of the Central Government 15% share of the State Government and 35% share of the State Bank of India 1 Heard learned counsel for the applicant. 1; From the letter dated 6.9.2010 filed by the applicant, it is clear that the respondent is also a public sector undertaking of the Central Government. ln the matter of Commissioner of lncome‘I Tax Briaspur Vs M/s SECL \Iaspur, this Court Vide its order dated 29‘“ April 2009 passed in ITA i » 0& ' \ \
@ No.57/2009, referring to the decision of the Division Bench of the Madras High ‘Nadu, 2009 (21) VST 158 (Madras), held that the insmnt appeal preferred by the revenue is not entertainabte in the absence of clearance from the Committee on Disputes (COD) constituted as per directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In the present case also, considering ttfa't the dispute is between the Central Government and a public sector undertaking of the Central Government, we are of the opinion that the instant appeal is not entertainable in the absence of clearance from CoD. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. However, liberty is reserved to the applicant to approach this Court after / Kr? obtaining clearance from CoD. i i i l- g " RN. Chandrakar Dhirendra Mishra r i Judge Judge
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Gr Infra Projects Limited Ratlam Through Its Authorized Signatory Mr. Pankaj Das vs. The State Of Madhya PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 14 Oct 2026
- J M Mhatre Infra PVT. LTD Thr. Authorized Chetan J. Mhatre vs. Union Of INDIA Thr. Secretary Dept. Of Revenue Ministry Of Finance And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages PVT. LTD. vs. The Commissioner, CGST And Cx, Dibrugarh And AnrGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Shree Sushruta Health Services Private Limited vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Rst Batteries vs. Deputy Commissioner CGST Delhi West & Ors.Delhi · 14 Oct 2026
