COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. PAMWI TISSUES LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Revenue has preferred the Appeal on the following question:

(2.) On behalf of the respondents, however, learned Counsel draws our attention to the judgment of the Gauhati High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. George Williamson (Assam) Ltd. . The issue there was contribution of P.F.dues after closing of accounting period, but before due date of filing returns. The Assessment Year was 1992-93. The Gauhati High Court followed its earlier judgments. The High Court in the Appeal preferred by the Revenue was pleased to hold that they are not inclined to review the decision in CIT v. Bharat Bamboo and Timber Supplies and CIT v. Assam Tribune . The learned Counsel points out that the Revenue had preferred Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Gauhati v. Vinay Cement Ltd. It is pointed out that one of the Appeals was the subject matter in the Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court was pleased to dismiss the Special Leave Petition.

(3.) The learned Counsel then draws our attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Supreme Court Employees Welfare Association v. Union of India to point out that if the Supreme Court has given reasons for dismissing the Special Leave Petition, that will attract Article 14 of the Constitution. Otherwise a mere dismissal of a Special Leave Petition as held in Indian Oil Corporation v. State of Bihar which does not indicate the grounds or reasons of dismissal by necessary implication it must be taken that the Supreme Court decided that it was not a fit case for a Special Leave Petition. Based on this it is sought to be submitted that the Supreme Court while dismissing the Special Leave Petition has given reasons and consequently that it would be a binding precedent.