2011 (7) TMI 577 - HC - Income Tax

Court affirms tax law constitutionality; bars commissioner appointment to dispute resolution panel for impartiality

Hyundai Heavy Industries Ltd. Versus Union of India

Hyundai Heavy Industries Ltd. Versus Union of India - [2012] 341 ITR 203 Issues Involved:1. Constitutionality of Section 144C of the Income-tax Act.2. Constitutionality of Rule 3(2) of the Income-tax (Dispute Resolution Panel) Rules, 2009.3. Alleged bias and conflict of interest involving the jurisdictional Commissioner as a member of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP).Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Constitutionality of Section 144C of the Income-tax Act:The petitioner challenged the vires of Section 144C, arguing that it led to a conflict of interest and potential bias, violating the principles of natural justice. The court examined the purpose of Section 144C, which was introduced to expedite the resolution of disputes involving foreign companies and to minimize prolonged litigation. The court concluded that Section 144C is a beneficial provision aimed at speedy disposal of disputes and does not inherently violate principles of natural justice. The court held that the mere potential for bias or abuse of power does not render the provision unconstitutional. Consequently, the challenge to the constitutionality of Section 144C was rejected.2. Constitutionality of Rule 3(2) of the Income-tax (Dispute Resolution Panel) Rules, 2009:The petitioner contended that Rule 3(2) creates an inherent conflict of interest by allowing jurisdictional Commissioners, who have supervisory roles, to be members of the DRP. The court noted that Rule 3(2) requires the Board to assign three Commissioners to each DRP, who would perform their regular duties alongside their responsibilities on the panel. The court found that the rule does not violate the Constitution and that the potential for bias does not make the rule unconstitutional. However, to ensure impartiality and the appearance of justice, the court directed the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) to ensure that jurisdictional Commissioners are not nominated as members of the DRP.3. Alleged Bias and Conflict of Interest Involving the Jurisdictional Commissioner:The petitioner argued that the involvement of the jurisdictional Commissioner, who had supervisory roles and had approved reassessment proceedings, in the DRP created a conflict of interest and violated the principle of 'nemo judex in sua causa' (no one should be a judge in their own cause). The court examined whether the presence of the jurisdictional Commissioner on the panel amounted to personal or legal bias. The court found that the Commissioner was performing statutory duties and that there was no personal bias. However, the court acknowledged the possibility of perceived bias and emphasized the importance of maintaining public confidence in the impartiality of the adjudicatory process. The court concluded that while there was no personal bias, the appearance of bias could undermine confidence in the DRP's decisions. Therefore, the court directed the CBDT to avoid appointing jurisdictional Commissioners to the DRP to prevent any perception of bias.Conclusion:The writ petition was dismissed, and the court upheld the constitutionality of Section 144C and Rule 3(2). However, to maintain the appearance of impartiality, the court directed the CBDT to ensure that jurisdictional Commissioners are not appointed to the DRP. Additionally, the court ordered the respondents to deposit the cost of Rs. 50,000 as previously directed.