3am www.mmgx ..............................................W ................................................ mmawm arsrf‘amanéw HIGH COURT OF CPJHARTTISGA‘RH AT BILAsF R Coram:- Hon’ble Shri Dhirendla Mishra 8: Hon’b!g Shri RN. chandyakar JJ Tax Case (PR! No.1 04412009 Commissioher of Income Tax (TDS), Appellant J3.evenue) Bhcpa!‘ y ersus Chhattlsqarh Resnondent (Assessee) State Bewerages Corporahon LTD Govmd Naghar Near Tarurl Chateuees Bungalow Pandn Rarpur Apgeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act! 1961 Present: / Shri S. Rajeshwar Rao. counsel for the appellant, Oral Order (Passed on 15‘ cf June, 2009) Per Dhirendra Mishra, J:- Thermatter is Hsted or default. The appeilant has‘med LA. No.1. application for taking documents on record to remove the default. (2) Heard. (3) LA. No.1 is allowed. lfvocuments are taken on record. (4) Arso heard on admission, (5) The appeuant has flie the instant appeal against the order dated 28.11.208 passed of the in me Tax Appeiiate Tribunal, Bilaspur Bench (Camp at Raipur) whe eby, the 0 appeai respondent/Corporation has een allowed. 7777/ preferred by the rem, WM... ...”._J [rite W ‘s Ccmm_-2 tomt CaaeC iy OW . .....................................w 200 (7) it was In these circumstances, _ —.M~ mm} Undisputediy, the co roversy relates to the income Tax Department, Central Governm It of lndia and a Company owned by the State Government of Chhatt sgarh, necessary for the appellant b ing a Centrai Government Department to obtain ciearance certificate fom the Committee on Disputes (COD) before filing the appeal aga nst the order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. In the absence of cl arance by COD, the instant appeai is not maintainable£Reliance is pla ed on _T_a_mil‘Nadu Sugar CorQration Ltd. Vs. Stare of Tamil Nada ( 09) 21 VST 158 (Madras) and Chief mama mm. W MK (“cg/m MKg Wg§ uti/ G] mm ma J)“ (6) Learned counsel for thp appellant does not d‘spute that the of respondent/Corporation is a wllpouy owned Corporauon of the State of Chhattisgarh and i$ engaged ‘m Fhe busmess of whoiesa‘e trade of Indxan Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL). This appeai has been preferred on the following substantial questions of law:— 1. ‘Whether the pavment of excise duty directly by the Licensee on purchase of IMFL, on behaif of corporation thoui;h not recorded in the books of accounts of he corporation, excuse the Corporation from the liability of TCS respondent collection, as red uired under Section 206C of the IT Act, 1961 ?“ 2. “Whether the excise component of the sale price is out of the def ition of purchase price, and the excise duty, whi calculating the TCS, shouid‘be excluded fromt e cost?" 311%?! 4Ti¢W3 v . Tm 9...”:4‘)“ M"°“"l°3 mm ‘31 zoo Carmen/afar of Forests Goverrment of AP‘ Vs‘ Callector (2003) 3 scc 472. 4 (8) Shri S. Rajeshwar Rao iearned counsel for the appeHant fairiy \ admitted that no certmoate of COD has been obtained by the Department for fnihg this appeal; (9) is not entertainabie L In ‘view of the in above, the abs w nce are of of clearance the opinion from that COD the instant constituted appeai as {'5 ‘ i‘ per thevdirections of the Hon ble Supreme Court. However, iiberty is reserved to the appeiiant to move this Court for obtaining clearance from the COD‘ if necessary. #:ir , MV i. ,Isd/in’ \ Sd/‘RN. Chandrakar j‘\\ DHmENDRA MISHRA , judge ' (1 0)‘ The appeal is accordingly disposed of. H \- \ i r s 9 l e W $$m mm ’ m h WW ,y Wamiiwm *mm