Un-necessary litigation by revenue on aspect of rectification of inadvertent / typing mistake in judgment of High Court in case of Maruti Udyog Ltd and some related interesting issue.

Chain of related judgments:

Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi Versus Maruti Udyog Ltd. - 2026 (5) TMI 1286 - SC Order

- (SLP of revenue against rectification order of Delhi High Court was dismissed).

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI Versus M/s MARUTI UDYOG LTD. - 2018 (2) TMI 1788 - DELHI HIGH COURT

-( Rectification order as per settled issues. Against this SLP was filed by revenue)

Commissioner Of Income Tax, Delhi Versus Maruti Udyog Ltd. - 2017 (12) TMI 1621 - DELHI HIGH COURT

( order in which inadvertent / typing error took place while answering substantial question of law by following earlier undisputed and settled order rendered on same day (07.12.2017) in ITA No. 250 of 2005:). Reported as :

Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi Versus Maruti Udyog Ltd. - 2017 (12) TMI 536 - DELHI HIGH COURT

No.- ITA No. 250/2005 Dated:- December 7, 2017 - there seems no appeal of revenue against this judgment.

From the above chain of judgments we find that rectification was made to rectify inadvertent mistake like a mistake in typing. Vide rectification order, the words and expressions 'answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the Assessee' occurring in para-3(iii) of the judgment dated 7th December, 2017 were substituted by the words and expressions 'answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue'.

The rectified order was as per settled legal position (vide order in No.- ITA No. 250/2005 Dated:- December 7, 2017 ) but mistake happened causing unintended and totally opposite result, which stood rectified by the rectification order.

Before the Supreme Court, as per reading of judgment, it can be said that any contention about disputed issue was not raised either in the rectification petition or during hearing.

Therefore, the appeal against the rectification order was un-necessary and not desirable.

Order of the Supreme Court with highlights added):

ORDER

1. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Solicitor General for the respondent.

2. We do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order.

3. The Special Leave Petition is hence dismissed

4. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.'

Un quote:

From the list of counsels we find that Mr. N. Venkataraman, ASG, appeared for Petitioner with other 7 counsels for Petitioner ( CIT)

And also

That Mr. S. D. Sanjay, ASG, with other 5 counsels with him appeared for respondent ( Maruti).

Surprisingly on reading of the judgment also we find that Additional Solicitor General appeared for the respondent .

1. This means that there is no mistake in the list of counsels for respondents which include at serial no. 1 Mr. S. D. Sanjay, ASG.

Why Additional Solicitor General Mr. S. D. Sanjay, ASG appeared is not mentioned.

Generally ASG would appear for government and in some cases for PSU.

Maruti Suzuki India Limited is not a PSU. It is a listed private-sector company promoted and controlled by Suzuki Motor Corporation of Japan.

ASGs are high-ranking law officers appointed by the Government to defend state interests, their professional scope is strictly regulated.

Whether there is a mistake in the judgment, in this regard.?

It need a clarification, otherwise on a plain reading of the judgment, there seems a mistake.

As per Wikipedia commentary ' an ASG can appear and appeal on behalf of an assessee if they are representing them in a private, non-governmental capacity or if the Government specifically assigns them to defend the assessee in a unique case.'

As per author, if an ASG appear on behalf of private party, then prefix ASG should not be used with his name, and there should be disclosure of reasons and circumstances of the case justifying ASG to act on behalf of private party as respondent, in a case where government or its department is Petitioner / Appellant.

When Petitioner is government or its department ASG should not argue on behalf of respondent. This will be directly in conflict of interest.

This appeal can be described as clear abuse of process of law and wasting of valuable time of all concerned namely:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN - two judges.

Eight Counsels who appeared for the Petitioner(s) namely:

1. Mr. N. Venkataraman, ASG,
2. Mr. Sudarshan Lamba, Adv.,
3. Mr. Prashant Singh(II), Adv.,
4. Mr. T.S. Sabarish, Adv.,
5. Mr. Sarthak Karol, Adv.,
6. Mr. V.C. Bharathi, Adv.,
7. Mr. Raman Yadav, Adv.,
8. Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, AOR.

Six counsels who appeared For Respondent(s) namely:

1. Mr. S. D. Sanjay, ASG,
2. Mr. S. Ganesh, Sr. Adv.,
3. Mr. Vaibhav Kulkarni, Adv.,
4. Mr. Aniket Deepak Agrawal, AOR,
5. Mr. Aditeya Bali, Adv.

Staff and officers of the Supreme Court who dealt with matter from filing to disposal and publication of order.

This type of brain drain should come to an end.