Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Hyderabad Transmission Corpn. Of Ap. Ltd. vs Acit [Alongwith Sp Nos. 25 To 28/H/05 In ... on 24 February, 2005 ORDER J. Sudhakar Reddy, Accountant Member 1. There stay petitions are filed by the above mentioned assessees. The assessees are Public Sector Undertakings/Corporations owned by Govt. of Andhra Pradesh. By this Stay petitions, the assesees seek stay of demand arising from the impugned asessment orders. 2. The preliminary issue that has come up for consideration 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 and Natural Gas Commission and Anr. v. Collector of central Excise 1992 Supp (2) SCC 432 and 1995 Supp (4) SCC 541 (ii) Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. v. Chairman Central Board, Direct Taxes and Anr. 262 ITR 618 (SC) (iii) State of Rajasthan v. ITAT 259 ITR 618 (Raj) and (iv) Order of ITAT in the case of Singareni Collieries Ltd. in ITA No. 307/11/91 for 9596 dt. 27.7.2003: ITA Nos. 496/hyd/89AY 8283;214/HYD/91AY 8485;216/HYD NO. 91 AY 8586;854/HYD/91AY8990 order dt 25.7.2003; ITA NO. 221/HYD NO. 221/HYD/99 AY 9697order dt 12.2.2004; ITR NO. 622/HYD/99 AY 9596 AY 9596 to 9798order dt 11.5.2004. 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 an/or between Departments of the state Govt. 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 Secretariat 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 u p before these Bench earlier, it was argued that what was contemplated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ONGC(supra) and in the case of MTNL (supra) was disputes between the public sector Undertaking of the Central Government and the Department of the Union Govt. and that disputes between the Undertaking of the State Government and Department 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 and Ors. what was contemplated was a "Committee on disputes" got looking into the matter 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 Departments of the Govt. of India, was not considered by the Hon'ble Supreme court. They submitted that the order of ITAT in the case of sniggering Collieries 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 ld DR 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 ONGC v. Collector of Central Excise: 1992 Supp (20 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 should not fight their litigations in Court by spending money on lees 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 repealed on a number of occasions, the present cases appear to be an instance of total callousness. The letter of October 3, 1988 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 ONGC v. Collector of Central Excise: 1995 Supp (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 Government of India, Ministry and Public Sector undertakings of the Govt. of India and Public Sector Undertakings in betwee