(As‘sessee) Division Bench: Hon. Shri Dhirendra Mishra & Hon. Shri R.N. Chandrak’an JJ. 2-7-2009:- Shri S. Rajeshwara Rao, oi Heard. The appeiiant has filed the the income Tax Act, 1 961 (for sh law as mentioned in the memo o appeal. Before arguments could be advanced by the appellant on admission based on the propos d substantial questions of law, it was fairly admitted by learned couns Ifor the appellant that it was necessary for the appellant to obtain clea ance from the Committee of Dispute (COD) before ming an appeal a ainst the Income Tax Department. ln i e > the absence of clearance fr m CoD, the instant appeal is not Near ‘ Tarun Bungalow, Pandri, Raipur )unsel for the appellant. Corporation Ltd., Govind Naghar,‘ Chatterjee’s \\ instant appeal under Section 260-A of rt ‘the Act’) on substantial questions of saw w W35 m1mm WW amt mi—xM?W ‘ f‘stz?W $ W 31m APPELLANT: Commissioner of Income Tax (Revenue) (TDS), Bhopal -Versus- RESPONDENT: Chhattisgarh State Bewerages )G-HC—78 mmw 3911mm ‘mafgaeméw -:&’ entertainable‘ Reliance is piaced in the matter of Tamil Nadu Sugar Corporation Ltd. V. State of Ta il Nadu1. ln the matter of Tamil Nad Sugar Corporation Ltd. (Supra), the Division Bench of Madras High C urt relying upon the judgments of the Hon’bie Supreme Court in the m ers of Oil and Natural Gas Corpn. V. City & industrial Development C rporation, Maharashtra Ltd. [2007] 7 SCC 39, Oil and Natural Gas Co mission V. Collector of Central Excise [1992] Supp 2 SCC 432, Oil and Natural Gas Commission V. Collector of Central Excise [19951 Sup 4 SCC 541, Oil & Natural Gas Commission V. Collector of Cent al Excise [2004] 6 SCC 437 has held that Public Sector. Undertaking b fore tiling an appeal against the order of Commissioner, income Tax D artment has to obtain clearance from the COD. Further referring to the folowing observations of the Supreme Court in the case’of Chief Con ervator of Forests, Government of A.P. V. Collectorz, it has been h id that the revision is not entertainable D. in the absence of clearance from “Disputes between Government Departments cannot be contest in court. StateslUnion of lndia must evolve mechanism for resolving interdepartmental co troversies. Constitution of 1 . [2009] 2‘1 VST 158 (Mad) a 2 [2003] 3 SCC 472 o e ”5x1 Hc 78 \ Bar\\ committees suggested Which should consist of Chief Secretary, Secretaries of the departments cohcerned, Secretary of Law and Secretary of Finance (where financial commitments are invoived) whose decision should be binding on aii departments concerned.” Learned counsei appearing on behalf of the appellant fairly admitted that no certificate from COD has been obtained by the appellant before nling the appeal. in View of the above, we are of the opinion that the instant appeal ce of clearancefrom CoD constituted as / is not entertainable in the abse perthe directions of the Hon’ le Supreme Court. However, liberty is reserved to the appellant to m ve this Court after obtaining clearance \ w.33.......... - WW 200 311%?!m (Wm am 3:1W am Wm gm?W 311%?! __‘'3_ W WE?! WW $ W W from the COD i /f Sd/- ‘ mENDRA MISEmA “’1‘ Judge I ‘M Sdl- ,ma as RN Chandrakar r Judge _.- i l r/x,# r ,,L_