Court Rules MSMED Act Inapplicable to Dispute Between Income Tax Dept & CA Firm

The court determined that the MSMED Act does not apply to the dispute between the Income Tax Department and the Chartered Accountant Firm regarding Special Audits. It held that the MSEFC lacks jurisdiction over the claims raised by the CA Firm under the IT Act. The court also noted that Section 293 of the IT Act bars civil suits to set aside or modify orders made under the IT Act, making arbitration proceedings untenable. Writ petitions were deemed maintainable due to the lack of jurisdiction by the MSEFC. The court set aside the references to arbitration and allowed the writ petitions, providing the CA Firm with remedies to challenge the IT Department's orders on remuneration.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Applicability of the MSMED Act to the dispute.
2. Jurisdiction of the MSEFC under the MSMED Act.
3. Bar under Section 293 of the IT Act.
4. Maintainability of the writ petitions.

Summary:

1. Applicability of the MSMED Act:

The court examined whether the MSMED Act applies to the dispute between the Income Tax Department (IT Department) and the Chartered Accountant (CA) Firm concerning the fee for Special Audits under Section 142(2A) of the Income Tax Act (IT Act). The court concluded that the MSMED Act does not apply to this case because the relationship between the IT Department and the CA Firm is not one of buyer and supplier. The Special Audit is a statutory obligation, not a commercial contract, and the remuneration determined by the IT Department is final and not subject to the MSMED Act's provisions.

2. Jurisdiction of the MSEFC:

The court held that the Micro & Small Enterprise Facilitation Council (MSEFC) lacks jurisdiction to deal with the claims raised by the CA Firm under Section 142(2A) of the IT Act. The nature of the assignment is statutory, and the determination of remuneration by the IT Department is final. The MSEFC's reference to arbitration was found to be misplaced and not tenable.

3. Bar under Section 293 of the IT Act:

The court noted that Section 293 of the IT Act bars any suit in civil court to set aside or modify any proceedings or orders made under the IT Act. Since arbitration proceedings are akin to civil proceedings, the MSEFC's jurisdiction is barred under Section 293 of the IT Act. The court emphasized that the only remedy available to the CA Firm is through a writ petition.

4. Maintainability of the Writ Petitions:

The court addressed the maintainability of the writ petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It concluded that a writ petition is maintainable in exceptional circumstances where there is a complete lack of jurisdiction in the arbitral tribunal. The court found that the MSEFC lacked jurisdiction in this case, making the writ petitions maintainable.

Conclusion:

The court set aside the impugned references by the MSEFC to arbitration and allowed the writ petitions. The remedies of the CA Firm to challenge the orders passed by the IT Department regarding the determination of remuneration are left open.

---