Excise duty demand after show-cause and quantification treated as accrued liability despite writ challenge; appeal dismissed

The dominant issue was whether excise duty demanded by the Excise Department constituted a contingent liability or an accrued statutory liability deductible in the relevant accounting period. The SC held that once the duty was quantified and a demand notice issued after show-cause proceedings, the liability became an ascertained debt with a binding legal obligation to pay unless and until set aside or modified. The pendency of a writ petition disputing the demand did not render the liability uncertain or contingent. Consequently, the HC's refusal to entertain the Revenue's request to raise and refer questions was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.

---

---

Issues:
1. Deductibility of contingent liability under the Income-tax Act.
2. Applicability of legal principles in determining liability for excise duty.
3. Treatment of contingent liability in accounting books for tax deduction purposes.

Issue 1: Deductibility of contingent liability under the Income-tax Act:
The case involved a dispute regarding the deductibility of a contingent liability under the Income-tax Act. The Commissioner of Income-tax sought reference of questions related to the correctness of confirming a contingent liability as deductible. The High Court dismissed the application, stating the questions were academic in light of previous decisions. The Revenue appealed this decision. The assessee claimed deduction for excise duty demanded for previous years, which was disallowed by the Income-tax Officer citing the mercantile accounting system. The Commissioner allowed the claim based on legal precedents. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and the reference application. The Supreme Court analyzed the liability arising from the demand notice and upheld the rejection of the Revenue's application, emphasizing the enforceability of the liability despite pending disputes.

Issue 2: Applicability of legal principles in determining liability for excise duty:
The case revolved around the classification of carbon paper for excise duty purposes. The assessee contested the classification under a new tariff item, leading to a demand notice for payment of excise duty. The Revenue challenged the deduction claimed by the assessee for the excise duty. The Supreme Court examined the enforceability of the liability based on legal precedents. It highlighted that the liability arose upon the demand notice, regardless of pending disputes or accounting entries. The Court cited previous judgments to support the position that the liability to pay excise duty was not contingent but enforceable, rejecting the appellant's arguments.

Issue 3: Treatment of contingent liability in accounting books for tax deduction purposes:
The appellant argued that the absence of entries acknowledging the liability in the accounting books should impact the deductibility of the excise duty. The Supreme Court referenced previous decisions to emphasize that the existence of entries in accounting books does not solely determine deductibility. The Court reiterated that the liability's enforceability and existence at the time were crucial for deductions, dismissing the appellant's reliance on the Indian Molasses Co. case. The Court upheld the High Court's decision to reject the application, affirming that the liability for excise duty was not contingent but an actual liability, thus justifying the deduction claimed by the assessee.

---