Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Hyderabad Transmission Corpn. Of Ap Ltd. vs Asstt. Cit, Circle (2) on 24 February, 2005 Equivalent citations: [2005]97ITD171(HYD) ORDER J. Sudhakar Reddy, A.M. These Stay Petitions are filed by the above mentioned assessees. The assessees are Public Sector Undertakings/Corporation owned by Government of Andhra Pradesh. By this Stay Petition, the assessees seek stay of demand arising from the impugned assessment orders. 2. The preliminary issue that has come up forconsideration is whether this Bench of the Tribunal has the power to admit the case in view of the following judgments and the communication of the Hon'ble President in the case of AP State Civil Supplies Corpn. Ltd. : (i) Oil & Natural Gas Commission v. CCE 1992 Suppl. (2) SCC 432 and Oil & Natural Gas Commission v. CCE (1995) Suppl. (4) SCC 541. (ii) Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. v. Chairman, CBDI'(2004) 267 ITR 647 (SC). (iii) State of Rajasthan v. ITA T (2003) 259 ITR 686 (Raj) and (iv) Orders of ITAT in the case of Singareni Collieries Ltd. in ITA No. 307/Hyd./91 for AY 199596, dated 2772003; ITA Nos. 496/Hyd/89, AY 8283; 214/Hyd./91, AY 198384; 215/Hyd./91, AY 8485; 216/Hyd./91, AY 8586; 854/Hyd./91, AY 8990 order dated 2572003; ITA No. 221/Hyd./99, AY 9697 order dated 1222004, ITA No. 622/Hyd./99 AY, 199596 to 199798order dated 1152004. 3. The case of the assessees is that these Public Sector Undertakings are owned by the State Government and that the dispute between a Public Sector Undertakings of State Government and/or between departments of the State Government on the one side and departments of the Union Government on the other side do not fall within the jurisdiction of "Committee on Disputes" in Cabinet Secretariate and that no "Committee on Disputes" has been constituted to resolve or permit such dispute, either by the Central Government or the State Government, to enable the assessees to seek permission from them. Under these circumstances when an identical issue had come up before this Bench earlier, it was argued that what was contemplated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Oil & Natural Gas Commission (supra) and in the case of Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. (supra) was disputes between the Public Sector Undertakings of the Central Government and the departments of the Union Government and that disputes between the Undertakings of the State Government and departments of the Union Government have not been contemplated and that in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of AP Chief Conservator of Forest v. Collector (2003) 3 SCC 472 what was contemplated was a "Committee on Disputes" for looking into the matters that arise between different limbs of State Government only and that the department of a State Government or/and a Public Sector Undertakings owned by the State Government, having disputes with a department of the Government of India, was not considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. They submitted that the order of ITAT in the case of Singareni Collieries Ltd. (supra) which was in line with the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court requires reconsideration and that a special Bench of the Tribunal has to be constituted. 4. The learned Departmental Representative contended that this Bench of the Tribunal has already taken a view on the matter by following the judgment of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court and that it cannot deviate from its earlier view. 5. Rival contentions heard. We have carefully considered the arguments as well the case laws on the subject. For ready reference, we feel that it would be useful to extract the judicial pronouncement on the issue : The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India : (a) In the case of Oil & Natural Gas Commission v. CCE 1992 Suppl. (2) SCC 432 : "The court has no more than one occasion pointed out that Public Sector Undertakings of Central Government and the Union of India should not fight their litigations in court by spending money on fees of counsel, court fees, procedural expenses and wasting public time. Courts are maintained for appropriate litigations. Court's time is not to be consumed by litigations which are carried on either side at public expenses from the source. Notwithstanding these observations repeated on a number of occasions, the present cases appear to be an instance of total callousness. The letter of 3101988 indicated that the Cabinet Secretary was looking into the matter. That has not obliviously been followed up. As an instance of wasting public time and energy this matter involves a principle to be examined at the highest level. (b) In the case of Oil & Natural Gas Commission v. CCE 1995 Suppl. (4) SCC 541 : "We direct that the Government of India shall set up a Committee consisting of Representatives from the Ministry of Industry. The Bureau of Public Enterprises and the Ministry of Law, to monitor disputes between Ministry and Ministry of Govern