TaxTMI Updates e-Newsletter
Jun 17,2020

Refund of seized amount - interest on refund - honour of refund vouchers - suspension of P2F session - judicial compliance of refund direction - administrative liaison with Ministry of Finance and Reserve Bank of India - expeditious tax refunds during COVID-19

Refund of seized amount - interest on refund - honour of refund vouchers - judicial compliance of refund direction - Refund voucher for interest previously ordered to be paid had been returned unpaid by the bank; Court directed issuance of notice to the Ministry of Finance and Reserve Bank of India and noted the need to ensure refund vouchers are honoured. - HELD THAT: - The Court recorded that although the seized amount and interest had been ordered refunded and a contempt proceeding was disposed of on that basis, the refund voucher for the interest amount was returned unpaid by SBI with the stated reason that the refund voucher must be presented physically in a P2F session. The Court noted that RBI had suspended the P2F session from 23rd March, 2020 due to the COVID-19 outbreak, causing banks not to honour refund vouchers issued by the Income Tax Department. Given the importance of ensuring tax refunds are effected promptly as part of economic revival measures, the Court issued notice (without process fee) to the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, and the Reserve Bank of India to address the systemic impediment preventing honouring of refund vouchers.

Notice issued to the Ministry of Finance and the Reserve Bank of India (without process fee) to address non-honouring of refund vouchers and to ensure the refund voucher issued by the Income Tax Department is honoured.

Administrative liaison with Ministry of Finance and Reserve Bank of India - expeditious tax refunds during COVID-19 - Interim liberty granted to departmental officials to liaise with Ministry of Finance and RBI to secure honouring of the refund voucher pending further orders. - HELD THAT: - Recognising the practical impediment caused by suspension of the P2F session and the exigency of effecting refunds during the pandemic, the Court permitted respondents' officials in the Income Tax Department to speak to officials of the Ministry of Finance and the Reserve Bank of India to attempt to ensure that refund vouchers are honoured immediately. The Court recorded the urgency of the matter and listed the matter for further hearing.

Respondents permitted to liaise with the Ministry of Finance and Reserve Bank of India to secure honouring of the refund voucher; matter listed for further consideration on 22nd June, 2020.

Final Conclusion: The High Court directed issuance of notice to the Ministry of Finance and the Reserve Bank of India regarding non-honouring of refund vouchers (without process fee), permitted immediate administrative liaison by Income Tax Department officials to secure payment, and listed the matter for further hearing on 22nd June, 2020.

Capital expenditure versus revenue expenditure - advertising and sales promotion expenses - creation of intangible asset/brand and enduring benefit - depreciation on intangibles - precedent and consistency of appellate decisions - treatment of initial-stage business expenditure

Advertising and sales promotion expenses - capital expenditure versus revenue expenditure - creation of intangible asset/brand and enduring benefit - precedent and consistency of appellate decisions - depreciation on intangibles - Whether the Assessing Officer was justified in treating the advertisement and sales promotion expenditure of Rs. 11,41,12,337/- for A.Y. 2013-14 as capital in nature and disallowing depreciation thereon. - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal found that the advertisement and sales promotion outlay of the assessee was incurred for publicity of the trade/brand and for enhancement of sales rather than for creation of a distinct enduring asset falling outside the revenue stream. The Tribunal relied on the fact that identical issues for earlier assessment years had been decided in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal and, in A.Y. 2010-11, that concurrent conclusion was affirmed by the High Court which adverted to the principles in Salora International and rejected application of a rigid bright line test. Given the identical nature of the controversy for A.Y. 2013-14, the Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in reversing the Assessing Officer's view that the expenditure produced an enduring capital advantage and in allowing the claim. The Tribunal therefore upheld the view that such expenditure is revenue in nature and not a depreciable intangible as contended by the Revenue. [Paras 7]

The disallowance by the Assessing Officer was not justified; the CIT(A) correctly allowed the expenditure as revenue in nature and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal is dismissed; the Tribunal confirmed that the advertisement and sales promotion expenditure for A.Y. 2013-14 is revenue in nature (not a capital/intangible asset attract ing depreciation exclusion), consistent with earlier appellate decisions in the assessee's favour.

Apportionment of conveyance expenditure between business and personal use - undisclosed rental income detected from AIR/FORM 26AS - estimation of undisclosed business receipts - explanation of source for unexplained bank cash deposits - consequential levy of interest under provisions relating to default in furnishing return and payment of tax

Apportionment of conveyance expenditure between business and personal use - Whether the disallowance made from the claim of conveyance expenses should be sustained and if so to what extent. - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer disallowed 20% of the total conveyance claim for lack of proper explanation and that the Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the disallowance because the assessee did not furnish details. The Tribunal accepted that some part of the conveyance expenditure could have been for personal purposes but considered a 20% disallowance excessive on the facts. Applying a more moderate apportionment, the Tribunal reduced the disallowance to 15% of the total claim of conveyance expenditure and directed that disallowance be sustained to that extent. [Paras 6]

Disallowance reduced and sustained at 15% of the total conveyance claim.

Undisclosed rental income detected from AIR/FORM 26AS - Whether the addition of rental income disclosed in third party data but not in the return can be sustained. - HELD THAT: - The Assessing Officer made an addition after AIR data showed receipt of rental income which was not disclosed in the return; the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the addition noting the assessee's admission of non disclosure. Before the Tribunal no details were produced to contradict the record. In view of the absence of explanation or evidence to the contrary, the Tribunal affirmed the addition of the undisclosed rental receipt. [Paras 8]

Addition on account of undisclosed rental income confirmed.

Estimation of undisclosed business receipts - Whether the addition estimated by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained discrepancy between third party data and declared business receipts should be sustained and at what rate. - HELD THAT: - The Assessing Officer used Form 26AS and AIR data to ascertain receipts materially higher than declared and estimated a percentage (20.72%) of the unexplained difference as undisclosed business income; the Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed that estimate. The Tribunal, noting the nature of the assessee's business and likely expenses, exercised its evaluative function and held that a lower estimate of 15% of the unexplained receipts fairly meets the ends of justice. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to sustain the addition at the reduced percentage (rounded for assessment purposes). [Paras 10]

Addition sustained but reduced to 15% of the unexplained business receipts.

Explanation of source for unexplained bank cash deposits - Whether the addition of unexplained bank deposits should be sustained and, if so, to what extent it should be assessed. - HELD THAT: - The Assessing Officer added cash deposited in the assessee's bank account as unexplained income when withdrawals from other accounts did not justify the deposit and no source was furnished; the Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the addition. The Tribunal noted the assessee's disclosed total income and the adjustments already sustained (with telescoping effect) and exercised discretion to moderate the addition. Considering the accumulated earnings and prior additions, the Tribunal concluded that sustaining an addition equal to half of the deposit amount would adequately explain the source and meet the ends of justice, and therefore upheld the addition to that reduced extent. [Paras 13]

Addition sustained but reduced to half of the bank cash deposit for which source was unexplained.

Consequential levy of interest under provisions relating to default in furnishing return and payment of tax - Whether the levy of interest under the relevant provisions survives after the adjustments made to income. - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal observed that interest under the specified provisions is consequential to the assessment of income and tax. Since the substantive additions (and their reductions) were upheld or modified by the Tribunal, the question of interest arises only consequentially and does not survive as an independent ground. [Paras 15]

Levy of interest is consequential and stands to be computed in accordance with the assessment as modified.

Final Conclusion: The appeal is partly allowed: the Tribunal confirmed the additions for undisclosed rental income and for unexplained receipts (business and bank deposits) but reduced the estimates - conveyance disallowance reduced to 15%, undisclosed business receipts addition reduced to 15% of the unexplained difference, and the addition in respect of the unexplained bank deposit reduced to half the deposit; interest to be computed consequentially.

Rejection of books of account - accommodation entries / entry provider - estimation of commission income on presumed agency transactions - reconciliation of inter-company balances - addition as undisclosed income under section 68 - verification of source of funds through banking channels

Rejection of books of account - accommodation entries / entry provider - estimation of commission income on presumed agency transactions - verification of source of funds through banking channels - Whether additions made as presumed commission income by treating the assessee as an entry provider and rejecting books of account were sustainable - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal examined the AO's estimate of commission income which was founded on the AO's conclusion that the assessees were merely entry providers and that their books were unreliable. The CIT(A) had considered the audited books, bank records, confirmations and the fact that transactions were effected through banking channels and that no adverse material emerged during surveys or in the assessments of the counterparties. The CIT(A) applied detailed verification, relied upon earlier appellate findings for preceding years where similar additions were deleted, and found that the AO had made additions on suspicion without adducing cogent evidence or pointing out specific defects warranting rejection of books under the applicable principles. The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A) that mere low margins or suspicion, absent corroborative material, do not justify treating trading transactions as accommodation entries or estimating commission income, and therefore found no infirmity in the appellate conclusion to delete such additions. [Paras 7, 22, 34, 39, 44]

Additions estimated as commission income by treating the assessees as entry providers were deleted and the Revenue's appeals on this issue were dismissed.

Reconciliation of inter-company balances - addition as undisclosed income under section 68 - verification of source of funds through banking channels - Whether differences between amounts shown in the assessee's books and the books of counterparties could be treated as unexplained income and added to taxable income - HELD THAT: - The AO treated mismatches in balances with various parties as undisclosed income, adding amounts under the head of unexplained income. On appeal, the CIT(A) scrutinised the books, bank statements, share allotment records, share application monies and confirmations; called for remand reports; and found that many entries represented share capital, share application money or old balances carried in different sub-heads across parties' balance sheets. The assessee demonstrated that transactions were effected through regular bank accounts and that counterparties were assessed taxpayers; several balances were old or reflected in preceding years. The AO had not produced specific adverse material or disproved the explained sources. The Tribunal held that where reconciliations, documentary evidence and verifiable banking trails exist and no adverse evidence is shown by the AO, differences in presentation of heads do not justify additions as unexplained income and therefore upheld the deletions made by the CIT(A). [Paras 10, 15, 33, 41]

Additions made on account of alleged differences in balances were deleted; the Revenue's appeals on these additions were dismissed.

Final Conclusion: All appeals filed by the Revenue against the orders of the CIT(A) in respect of the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15 were dismissed; the Tribunal upheld the appellate findings that (i) commission additions based on mere suspicion and rejection of books were unsustainable where transactions were through bank channels and no adverse material was produced, and (ii) alleged mismatches in inter-party balances, once reconciled and supported by bank records and share documentation, did not constitute unexplained income.

Reopening of assessment under section 147/notice under section 148 - prohibition on reopening on mere difference of opinion - requirement of recorded reasons for reopening - quashing of notice for want of reasons

Reopening of assessment under section 147/notice under section 148 - prohibition on reopening on mere difference of opinion - requirement of recorded reasons for reopening - quashing of notice for want of reasons - Validity of the notice issued under section 148 for reopening the assessment. - HELD THAT: - The assessment for A.Y.2009-10 had been completed under section 143(3) after the assessee furnished, during the original assessment proceedings, bank details and a confirmation letter from the HUF explaining the source of the receipt. No new information was shown to have emerged after completion of the assessment. The department failed to produce the reasons recorded for reopening despite opportunities; in their absence and on the material on record the reopening amounted to a mere change of opinion by the Assessing Officer. Reopening of assessment is impermissible where it is based on difference of opinion and where no fresh information or valid reasons are furnished. For these reasons the notice issued under section 148 was held to be without jurisdiction and was quashed. [Paras 7, 8]

Notice issued under section 148 quashed; reopening held to be invalid.

Final Conclusion: The revenue appeal is dismissed; the assessee's cross objections are partly allowed insofar as the reopening notice under section 148 is quashed and the assessment cannot be reopened on the grounds relied upon by the department.

Ownership of funds in a joint bank account - Unexplained cash credits and evidentiary proof under section 68 of the Act - Deletion of addition on production of business registration and financial statements

Ownership of funds in a joint bank account - Unexplained cash credits and evidentiary proof under section 68 of the Act - Deletion of addition on production of business registration and financial statements - Whether the cash deposit in the joint savings bank account could be treated as the assessee's unexplained income under section 68 or whether it related to the assessee's wife and the addition should be deleted. - HELD THAT: - The assessee produced before the revenue authorities evidence that the bank account was a joint account with his wife, that the wife ran a coaching institute (service tax registration produced), and that she regularly filed income-tax returns. Copies of the wife's ITR, balance-sheet and profit and loss account were furnished, and it was explained that rental income of the assessee and his wife was deposited into the account and the wife was free to withdraw or deposit as required. The AO disbelieved these explanations and made an addition treating the cash deposit as unexplained credit. The Tribunal examined the documentary material placed on record and found that the evidence furnished was sufficient to show that the deposit related to the assessee's wife and not to the assessee personally. The Tribunal held that the revenue authorities had failed to properly consider the documentation and, on that basis, concluded that the addition under section 68 could not be sustained and directed deletion.

Addition made treating the cash deposit as unexplained income was deleted and the appeal was allowed.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeal for Assessment Year 2013-14, holding that the cash deposit in the joint account pertained to the assessee's wife and, on the documentary evidence produced, the addition under section 68 was not sustainable and is deleted.

Disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D - Treatment of interest receipts as income from business v. income from other sources - Netting of interest income and interest expenditure subject to direct nexus - First degree nexus test for deduction under sections 80IB/80IC - Allocation of head office expenses to units claiming deduction - Revenue v. capital nature of line/bay charges - Nature of subsidised interest under the TUF / TUFS scheme (capital v. revenue) - Nature of sales tax subsidy (capital v. revenue) - Computation of MAT credit carry forward to include surcharge and cess - Restoration / verification of insurance claim receipts for eligibility under deduction provisions

Disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D - Disallowance of administrative expenses under Rule 8D(2)(iii) - Extent of disallowance under section 14A/Rule 8D for exempt dividend income - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal examined the assessee's historical orders of the Tribunal and High Court and the assessee's available own funds and pattern of investments. Following earlier ITAT decisions in the assessee's own case and applying the principle that where own funds were sufficient no interest disallowance is warranted, the Tribunal deleted the Rule 8D(2)(ii) interest disallowance. As to administrative expenses under Rule 8D(2)(iii), having regard to the fact that the substantial exempt dividend arose from holdings in subsidiaries (requiring little administrative effort) and the Tribunal's past determinations for comparable exempt incomes, the Tribunal restricted the administrative disallowance to specified capped amounts for the respective assessment years rather than applying Rule 8D mechanically in proportion to investments. [Paras 13, 55, 77]

Interest disallowance computed under Rule 8D(2)(ii) deleted; administrative expense disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) restricted (directed amounts applied per assessment year).

Treatment of interest receipts as income from business v. income from other sources - Netting of interest income and interest expenditure subject to direct nexus - Whether interest earned from banks/others is business income or income from other sources and whether interest expenditure may be netted - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal followed its earlier findings in the assessee's own cases that interest arising from delayed payments by customers/suppliers is linked to the business and is to be treated as business income, whereas interest from banks/others is income from other sources. Notwithstanding the classification against the assessee, the Tribunal accepted the assessee's submission that where a direct nexus exists between interest income and interest expenditure, netting should be permitted and directed the Assessing Officer to allow netting subject to verification of direct nexus. [Paras 16, 57, 79]

Interest from banks/others to be treated as income from other sources (classification affirmed) but netting of interest income with interest expenditure is to be allowed where direct nexus is established.

First degree nexus test for deduction under sections 80IB/80IC - Eligibility of various receipts for deduction under sections 80IB/80IC - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal applied the established first degree nexus test: only income having a direct nexus with the industrial undertaking qualifies for deduction. It held that (a) rental receipts from accommodation let to employees lack such nexus and therefore are not eligible, but only the profit element (net of expenses incurred to earn such rent) should be excluded from the deduction; (b) liquidated damages for cancellation of orders have a direct nexus and qualify for deduction; (c) brokerage/rebate on ocean freight and foreign exchange gains relating to export receivables were accepted as part of undertaking profits following prior Tribunal decisions in the assessee's own case and thus qualify; (d) interest received on security deposits from the Electricity Board did not have first degree nexus with the undertaking and therefore did not qualify. [Paras 23, 24, 59, 81]

Damages for cancellation and commission/brokerage/forex gains relating to export receipts are eligible for deduction under sections 80IB/80IC; rental income is not eligible except that only net rental profit (after allowable expenses) is to be disallowed from the deduction; interest on security deposits and certain other receipts are not eligible.

Allocation of head office expenses to units claiming deduction - Validity of allocation of head office expenses to units claiming deduction under sections 80IB/80IC - HELD THAT: - The CIT(A) followed the Tribunal's earlier orders in the assessee's own cases by allocating head office expenses net of head office income for computing profits of units eligible for deduction. The assessee could not point to any distinguishing facts to justify departure from those precedents. The Tribunal therefore upheld the approach adopted by the CIT(A). [Paras 26, 27, 61]

Allocation of head office expenses net of head office income for the purpose of computing profits of units eligible for deduction is upheld.

Revenue v. capital nature of line/bay charges - Nature of line/bay charges (capital v. revenue) - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal applied its prior decisions in the assessee's own case for subsequent years and found no distinguishing facts. On that basis it held that the line/bay charges paid to the State Electricity Board are revenue in nature and directed the Assessing Officer to treat them consequently. [Paras 31, 33, 63, 83]

Line/bay charges are revenue expenditure and the capital classification is reversed; the expenditure is to be treated as revenue.

Nature of subsidised interest under the TUF / TUFS scheme (capital v. revenue) - Whether reimbursement of interest under the TUF/TUFS scheme is capital or revenue receipt - HELD THAT: - Relying on the stated objective of the TUF/TUFS scheme (to induce modernisation of plant & machinery), prior decisions of the Jurisdictional High Court and the Tribunal in the assessee's own cases, and established tests for characterising subsidies, the Tribunal concluded that the interest subsidy under the scheme is capital in nature. [Paras 43, 45, 85]

Interest reimbursement under the TUF/TUFS scheme is a capital receipt.

Nature of sales tax subsidy (capital v. revenue) - Whether sales tax subsidy received is capital or revenue receipt - HELD THAT: - Applying the Apex Court's reasoning in Chaphalkar Brothers and the Tribunal's own earlier decisions in the assessee's cases, which treat sales tax subsidy as an incentive for setting up industrial units and therefore capital in nature, and finding no distinguishing facts, the Tribunal held the sales tax subsidy to be capital. [Paras 47, 49, 72, 85]

Sales tax subsidy is to be treated as a capital receipt.

Computation of MAT credit carry forward to include surcharge and cess - Whether surcharge and cess must be included in the quantum of MAT credit to be carried forward - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal followed its earlier decision in VMT Spinning Company Ltd. which held that surcharge and cess are includible in MAT credit. The Revenue cited no contrary higher authority. The CIT(A)'s direction to include surcharge and cess in computing MAT credit carry forward was therefore upheld. [Paras 51, 52, 74]

MAT credit carry forward is to be calculated after including surcharge and cess.

Restoration / verification of insurance claim receipts for eligibility under deduction provisions - Adjudication of insurance claim receipts for purposes of deduction under sections 80IB/80IC - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal reviewed its earlier approach in the assessee's own cases and observed that where insurance receipts indemnify loss of trading assets, such receipts operate to reduce booked losses/expenditure and may be allowed for computing eligible profits; where ambiguity exists between capital and trading assets, factual bifurcation by the Assessing Officer is necessary. Accordingly, the Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the AO for bifurcation/verification of items and to allow the claim in respect of insurance receipts relating to trading assets. [Paras 40, 41]

Issue restored to the Assessing Officer for verification/bifurcation of insurance claims between capital and trading assets and adjudication in accordance with Tribunal directions.

Final Conclusion: The cross appeals are partly allowed in favour of the assessee and partly dismissed for the Revenue. Key outcomes: Rule 8D interest disallowance deleted and administrative disallowance capped (per year); interest from banks/others remains taxable as income from other sources but netting with interest expense to be allowed where direct nexus is shown; certain receipts (damages for cancellation, ocean freight brokerage, export forex gains) qualify for deduction under sections 80IB/80IC while rental and certain other receipts do not (rental to be excluded only to the extent of net profit after expenses); head office allocation method affirmed; line/bay charges held revenue; TUF/TUFS interest subsidy and sales tax subsidy held capital receipts; MAT credit computation to include surcharge and cess; insurance claim receipts remanded to the Assessing Officer for factual bifurcation and verification.

Charitable trust - application of income for charitable purposes - exemption under section 11(1) - admission of additional evidence and Rule 46A of the Income tax Rules - remand for verification of evidence - assessment under section 143(3)

Admission of additional evidence and Rule 46A of the Income tax Rules - remand for verification of evidence - Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) violated Rule 46A by admitting additional evidence and deleting the addition without calling for a remand report from the Assessing Officer - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal considered the assessment record and the material placed before the CIT(A). The Assessing Officer had given only two days to the assessee to produce remaining details and proceeded to make an addition largely on the basis of an Inspector's report without fully examining bills and other documents subsequently filed. The CIT(A) examined the paper book and other documents submitted before him and concluded that the assessee had carried out the construction activity in pursuance of its objects. Given that payments were largely by cheque, that the activity was continuous over earlier years where similar expenditures were accepted in scrutiny assessments, and that the CIT(A) addressed the material on record, the Tribunal held that no remand report was required and that admitting the evidence and adjudicating the issue at the appellate stage did not constitute a violation of Rule 46A warranting interference. [Paras 8]

CIT(A) did not violate Rule 46A and was justified in admitting and considering the additional evidence without remand; ground dismissed.

Charitable trust - remand for verification of evidence - Whether the Assessing Officer's disallowance of the expenditure of Rs. 3,63,96,696/- for construction was justified or liable to be deleted by the CIT(A) - HELD THAT: - The Assessing Officer disallowed the claimed construction expenditure primarily on the basis of the Inspector's estimate and because the assessee had not furnished all details within the limited time given. The CIT(A) examined the comprehensive paper book and other documents, observed that the assessee has a sustained pattern of construction for running various charitable institutions, and noted that payments were made largely by cheques. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had not adequately examined the bills and other material and that relying solely on the Inspector's report (who was not competent to estimate construction costs) to disallow the entire expenditure was unjustified. In light of the material before the CIT(A) and consistent treatment of similar claims in adjacent years, the deletion of the addition was warranted. [Paras 8, 9]

Addition of Rs. 3,63,96,696/- deleted by CIT(A) is upheld; department's ground dismissed.

Application of income for charitable purposes - exemption under section 11(1) - Whether the assessee applied not less than 85% of its income to charitable purposes in AY 2013 14 and is therefore entitled to exemption under section 11(1) - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal noted the assessee's total income and the computation of expenditure (including depreciation) as accepted on the record. The required application of income (85%) was computed and compared with the assessee's actual application; the assessee's expenditure including depreciation exceeded the 85% threshold even after accounting for the disallowed item. The CIT(A) concluded, and the Tribunal agreed after examining the facts and material, that the assessee had applied more than 85% of its income to charitable purposes in the relevant year and that its activities and expenditures were in accordance with its objects. [Paras 10]

Assessee satisfied section 11(1) requirement; entire income for AY 2013 14 exempt and net income assessable at nil.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition; it held that admitting and considering additional evidence at the appellate stage did not violate Rule 46A, that the disallowance of construction expenditure was unjustified, and that the assessee applied more than 85% of its income to charitable purposes so that its income for Assessment Year 2013 14 is exempt under section 11(1).

Absence of power to review or recall final orders by a creature of statute - prospective effect of delegate's notification - applicability of enhanced pecuniary threshold under delegated power - pecuniary jurisdiction determined by law in force when matter was heard and reserved - remedy by appeal under Section 61 of the I&B Code

Absence of power to review or recall final orders by a creature of statute - Whether the Tribunal can exercise power to recall or review its admission order dated 05.05.2020 by invoking inherent powers or provisions cognate to review/recall. - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal held that, being a creature of statute, it does not possess an inherent power to review or recall its final orders in the absence of express statutory authority. Judicial precedents and the statutory scheme were considered to conclude that neither the Companies Act nor the NCLT/NCLAT Rules confer a general power to reopen a final adjudication of merits. The ratio in Swiss Ribbons and related authorities on Rule 11 was distinguished as applicable to interim withdrawal or settlement prior to constitution of a Committee of Creditors, and not to reopening a final order. Consequently the present application under which the Corporate Debtor sought recall/review of the admission order cannot be entertained by this Tribunal and must be dismissed. [Paras 20, 21, 22, 38]

The Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to recall or review its final admission order; the application for recall/review is dismissed.

Prospective effect of delegate's notification - applicability of enhanced pecuniary threshold under delegated power - Whether the Notification dated 24.03.2020 raising the minimum threshold for filing petitions under the I&B Code operates retrospectively or prospectively. - HELD THAT: - After examining the nature of delegated/conditional legislation and relevant precedents, the Tribunal found no express power in the parent statute authorising retrospective operation of the Notification nor any necessary intendment to make it retrospective. The Tribunal drew a distinction between plenary legislative power to enact retrospective laws and the limited scope of subordinate/delegated legislation. Comparative decisions and analogous administrative clarifications were considered; in the absence of explicit retrospective language or statutory mandate, the Notification must be treated as prospective and effective from 24.03.2020. [Paras 30, 31, 33, 34, 39]

The Notification dated 24.03.2020 is prospective in operation and cannot be applied retrospectively to invalidate prior proceedings.

Pecuniary jurisdiction determined by law in force when matter was heard and reserved - Which pecuniary threshold governs the maintainability of the Section 9 petition in IBA/1031/2019 - the earlier limit or the enhanced limit - having regard to the dates when the petition was heard, reserved and the admission order pronounced. - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal noted that the matter was finally heard and reserved on 04.03.2020, prior to publication of the Notification dated 24.03.2020. Applying established principles that substantive rights in pending proceedings are to be determined by the law in force when the lis commenced or when the matter stood reserved for orders, the Tribunal held that the pecuniary limit of Rs. 1 lakh prevailing prior to the Notification governed the present petition. Therefore, at the time the matter was heard and when the Tribunal exercised jurisdiction, it was competent to admit the petition under the earlier threshold. [Paras 14, 35, 39]

The petition was governed by the earlier pecuniary limit in force when the matter was heard/reserved; the Tribunal had pecuniary jurisdiction to admit the petition.

Remedy by appeal under Section 61 of the I&B Code - Whether the proper remedy for the Corporate Debtor aggrieved by the admission order was an application before this Tribunal or an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal. - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal observed that, in the absence of power to review or recall its final order, the appropriate statutory remedy for a party aggrieved by an admission order is to prefer an appeal under the I&B Code before the Appellate Tribunal. Reference to the Madras High Court's order and statutory appellate mechanism reinforced that relief by way of this recall application was not maintainable and the aggrieved party should proceed by appeal under Section 61 if so advised. [Paras 6, 23, 38]

The remedy for challenge to the admission order is by appeal under Section 61 of the I&B Code; the recall application to this Tribunal was not maintainable.

Final Conclusion: The application seeking recall/review of the admission order dated 05.05.2020 is dismissed. The Notification dated 24.03.2020 enhancing the pecuniary threshold is prospective in operation; the Tribunal had pecuniary jurisdiction when the petition was heard and reserved on 04.03.2020. The Corporate Debtor's remedy, if any, lies by appeal to the Appellate Tribunal under the I&B Code. The dismissal is made without costs.

Admission of Section 9 application under IBC - Operational debt and default - Pre-existing dispute defence under Section 8-9 - Moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC - Appointment of Interim Resolution Professional - Supply of essential goods or services during moratorium

Admission of Section 9 application under IBC - Operational debt and default - The Section 9 petition filed by the Operational Creditor is maintainable and is to be admitted. - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal found as an admitted fact that the Corporate Debtor placed a purchase order and the Operational Creditor delivered the equipment and raised an invoice. The purchase order and invoice constituted prima facie evidence of operational debt and default. The terms of the purchase order required installation and training by factory-trained engineers but did not make payment conditional upon completion of installation and training. There was no contemporaneous documentary evidence produced by the Corporate Debtor to show any delay on the part of the Operational Creditor in installation. Negotiations for settlement and part payment by the Corporate Debtor further supported the absence of a complete defence to the claim. Having conscientiously examined the records and submissions, the Tribunal held that the prerequisites for admission under Section 9 were satisfied and the petition ought to be admitted. [Paras 11, 12, 13, 14, 15]

Application under Section 9 admitted and CIRP to be initiated.

Pre-existing dispute defence under Section 8-9 - The contention of a pre-existing dispute regarding non-installation and non-provision of training is not a valid bar to admission. - HELD THAT: - The Corporate Debtor's defence that payment was not due because installation and training were not completed was examined against the purchase order terms and the evidence on record. The purchase order mandated installation and training by factory-trained engineers but did not state that payment was to follow only after such installation or training. The Tribunal observed that the Corporate Debtor delayed installation by requesting installation at a new location and raised the allegation only after issuance of the demand notice. The Corporate Debtor failed to place contemporaneous correspondence or documents proving a pre-existing dispute. On this basis the Tribunal concluded that the plea was an afterthought raised to evade payment and did not constitute a real pre-existing dispute preventing admission. [Paras 12, 13, 14]

Pre-existing dispute plea rejected; it does not preclude admission of the petition.

Appointment of Interim Resolution Professional - An Interim Resolution Professional is to be appointed and the person named by the Tribunal is to act subject to statutory disclosures and absence of disciplinary proceedings. - HELD THAT: - The Operational Creditor had not proposed an IRP. The Tribunal, relying on the list furnished by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India, appointed Ms. Ganesan Geetha as Interim Resolution Professional, subject to the condition that no disciplinary proceedings are pending against her and that the required disclosures under the applicable regulations are filed within one week from the date of the order. The Operational Creditor was directed to pay an initial amount to meet IRP expenses upon the filing of the statutory declaration. [Paras 3, 16, 19]

Interim Resolution Professional appointed on conditions; Operational Creditor to pay initial expenses.

Moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC - Supply of essential goods or services during moratorium - Moratorium under Section 14(1) is to follow from the date of the order, subject to the exceptions concerning supply of essential goods or services. - HELD THAT: - Upon admission under Section 9(5), the Tribunal directed the operation of moratorium as envisaged by Section 14(1), restraining institution or continuation of suits, disposal or encumbrance of assets and recovery of property. The Tribunal also recorded the statutory carve-outs under Sections 14(2), 14(2A) and 14(3) concerning continuation of supply of essential goods or services where applicable, and explained the duration of the moratorium as running till completion of the CIRP unless earlier terminated by approval of a resolution plan or an order for liquidation. [Paras 16, 17, 18]

Moratorium ordered with statutory exceptions; duration to continue for the CIRP period unless earlier terminated by approval or liquidation.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal admitted the Section 9 petition, held that the Corporate Debtor had defaulted on an operational debt and that the defence of pre-existing dispute was unsustainable, appointed an Interim Resolution Professional subject to conditions and directed the statutory moratorium to operate from the date of the order.

Operational debt and default - Admission under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Moratorium under section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Public announcement and claim submission under section 15 - Appointment of Interim Resolution Professional - No pre-existing dispute on the operational debt - Completeness of application and limitation

Operational debt and default - No pre-existing dispute on the operational debt - Existence of an operational debt, occurrence of default and absence of any pre-existing dispute between the parties. - HELD THAT: - The applicant produced invoices, ledger account, computation of debt and corroborating affidavits. The corporate debtor did not file a reply and, through its counsel, admitted the debt on instructions. The application was found to be within limitation and no dispute was shown to have existed prior to the issuance of the demand notice. On the material on record the Authority was satisfied that the claimed operational debt is due and that default has occurred. [Paras 8, 10, 11, 12, 14]

Operational debt is established, default has occurred and no pre-existing dispute exists.

Admission under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Completeness of application and limitation - Whether the petition under section 9 is maintainable and should be admitted. - HELD THAT: - Applying the tests articulated in Mobilox Innovations (P.) Ltd. v. Kirusa Software (P.) Ltd., the Authority examined whether (i) there is an operational debt exceeding the statutory threshold, (ii) documentary evidence shows the debt to be due and payable, and (iii) there is any pre-existing dispute or pending litigation prior to the demand notice. Finding that the documents support the claim, that the petition was within limitation, and that no dispute was raised by the corporate debtor, the Authority held the application to be complete and maintainable and that the requirements for admission under section 9 are satisfied. [Paras 9, 13, 14, 16]

The section 9 petition is maintainable and is admitted.

Moratorium under section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Public announcement and claim submission under section 15 - Whether a moratorium should be declared and public announcement made following admission of the section 9 petition. - HELD THAT: - On admission of the application, the Adjudicating Authority exercised its discretion under section 13 to direct actions required by sections 14 and 15. A moratorium was declared prohibiting institution or continuation of suits and proceedings, transfer or encumbrance of assets, enforcement of security interests and recovery of leased property. The Authority further directed that the Interim Resolution Professional make the statutory public announcement and call for submission of claims, and that supply of essential goods/services not be interrupted during the moratorium subject to notified exceptions. [Paras 15, 17, 18, 19]

Moratorium is declared and the Interim Resolution Professional is directed to make the public announcement and call for claims.

Appointment of Interim Resolution Professional - Appointment of an Interim Resolution Professional to manage the corporate insolvency resolution process. - HELD THAT: - The applicant did not propose an Interim Resolution Professional. The Adjudicating Authority appointed a named registered insolvency professional to act as Interim Resolution Professional under section 13(1)(c) to conduct the public announcement and carry out the duties under the Code. [Paras 20, 22]

A named Interim Resolution Professional is appointed to manage the CIRP.

Protection against striking off during CIRP - Whether action to strike off the corporate debtor's name should be restrained during the insolvency resolution process. - HELD THAT: - The Registry was directed to inform the Registrar of Companies that the respondent company is under corporate insolvency resolution process and that proceedings for striking off the company's name arising from non-compliance with specified provisions of the Companies Act should not be initiated, as such action would be detrimental to liquidation and realisation of assets for stakeholders. [Paras 23]

Registrar of Companies to be informed and striking-off proceedings restrained during the CIRP.

Final Conclusion: The section 9 petition is admitted: the Authority found an operational debt and default, no pre-existing dispute, declared moratorium, directed public announcement and claims process, appointed an Interim Resolution Professional and ordered communication to the Registrar of Companies to restrain striking-off proceedings while the corporate insolvency resolution process continues.

Refund of deposit made under protest following setting aside of demand - mandamus for refund of public money - unjust enrichment and restitution - Article 265 - levy and collection of tax only by authority of law - Section 72 Contract Act - repayment of money paid under coercion or mistake - entitlement to interest on delayed refund - contempt for non-compliance with court directions and costs

Refund of deposit made under protest following setting aside of demand - mandamus for refund of public money - Whether the petitioner is entitled to refund of the sum deposited under protest which was appropriated against a demand subsequently set aside by the Tribunal and affirmed by the High Court. - HELD THAT: - The deposit of Rs. 2,38,00,000/- was made under protest during audit/investigation against an anticipated liability for the period 1st July, 2003 to 31st March, 2005. The Tribunal set aside the entire demand on the ground of limitation and this order was affirmed by this Court, leaving no subsisting assessment or demand against the petitioner. The respondents did not show that the deposit was voluntary, by way of self-assessment, or that any part of the demand remained validly payable; instead they sought to treat the deposit differently from the rest of the demand despite the entire demand being set aside. The Court held that a State authority cannot retain amounts which have not been found due as tax and that permitting respondents to appropriate the deposit in these circumstances would amount to unjust enrichment and would be contrary to Article 265. The respondents' reasoning in the final rejection order, treating the deposit as non-refundable because it was not a pre-deposit, was found to be illogical and unsupported by any statutory provision. In view of these conclusions the writ jurisdiction was properly invoked and mandamus for refund was warranted. [Paras 11, 12, 14, 15, 16]

Mandamus issued directing refund of the deposit as respondents are not entitled to retain amounts where the demand has been set aside; the petition for refund succeeds.

Entitlement to interest on delayed refund - What rate of interest is payable on the refunded amount and from which periods. - HELD THAT: - The Court considered the circumstances of the deposit (made under protest during investigation) and the timeline of the petitioner's claim (first seeking refund on 2nd May, 2018). Balancing precedents cited by the parties and the respondents' non-compliance with earlier court directions (including issuance of a contempt notice), the Court fixed interest at 6% per annum from 1st November, 2006 to 31st May, 2018, and at 7.5% per annum from 1st June, 2018 until the date of actual refund. The Court further provided that if refund was not made by the specified short date, the rate would be enhanced prospectively to 12% per annum, thereby incentivising prompt compliance. [Paras 17, 18, 20, 21, 22]

Interest awarded at 6% p.a. from 1-11-2006 to 31-5-2018 and at 7.5% p.a. from 1-6-2018 until refund; rate to rise to 12% p.a. prospectively if respondents fail to comply by stipulated date.

Contempt for non-compliance with court directions and costs - Whether contempt proceedings should be continued for earlier non-compliance and whether costs are payable by respondents. - HELD THAT: - The Court recorded prior non-compliance with its directions (orders dated 17-12-2019 and subsequent assurances) and had issued a contempt notice. After hearing and on the respondents taking steps before the Court, the contempt notice was discharged as further contempt proceedings were considered futile. Nevertheless, the Court found the respondents had indulged in frivolous litigation and ordered costs against the respondents, payable to the petitioner, in addition to directing refund with interest. [Paras 3, 24, 25]

Contempt notice discharged; costs of Rs.25,000 awarded against respondents payable to the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: Writ petition allowed: mandamus issued directing respondents to refund the deposit made under protest with interest (6% p.a. from 1-11-2006 to 31-5-2018; 7.5% p.a. from 1-6-2018 until refund) and providing for enhancement to 12% p.a. on future default; contempt notice discharged and costs awarded to the petitioner.

Revision of orders by the Commissioner of Central Excise - Appeals to Appellate Tribunal - Saving clause - Maintainability of appeals - Accrued rights on repeal (General Clauses Act) - Conflict of Tribunal decisions

Conflict of Tribunal decisions - Maintainability of appeals - Saving clause - Reference to a larger Bench on the question whether appeals by Revenue and assessee against orders in revision passed after 19.08.2009 are maintainable before the CESTAT in the absence of an explicit saving clause in Section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994. - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal recorded that Sections 84 and 86 were amended w.e.f. 19.08.2009 such that the Commissioner's power to pass orders in revision was replaced by a mechanism of appeals to the Commissioner (Appeals), and while Section 84 contains an express explanation preserving the Commissioner's power in respect of orders passed immediately before the amendment, no corresponding saving provision was inserted in Section 86. Conflicting Tribunal precedents were noted: Bangalore Bench in T.A. Pai Management Institute held appeals against orders in revision maintainable (relying on accrued rights under the General Clauses Act), whereas the Mumbai Bench in Commissioner of Service Tax v. Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd. held such appeals not maintainable. The Tribunal found the two decisions to be contrary, observed that the same test should apply irrespective of whether the appellant is the Revenue or the assessee, and concluded that the question of maintainability in the absence of an explicit saving clause is a substantial point of law warranting adjudication by a larger Bench. [Paras 6, 7]

File to be placed before the President for constitution of a larger Bench to decide whether appeals by Revenue and assessee against orders in revision passed after 19.08.2009 are maintainable before the CESTAT in the absence of a specific saving clause in Section 86.

Final Conclusion: In view of conflicting Tribunal decisions on the maintainability of appeals under Section 86 after the 19.08.2009 amendment, the matter is referred to a larger Bench for determination and the Registry is directed to place the file before the President for constitution of such Bench.

Exemption under Notification No. 4/2007-CE (S.N.1A) - retail sale price declaration under Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 - third proviso to S.N.2 of the explanation to the notification (treatment where retail sale price is not required to be declared and thus not declared) - first proviso to S.N.2 of the explanation (wholesale packages with declared retail sale price) - extended period of limitation under proviso to Section 11A - requirement of fraud/collusion/wilful misstatement or suppression - penalty under Central Excise Rules and Act including personal penalty on official

Exemption under Notification No. 4/2007-CE (S.N.1A) - retail sale price declaration under Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 - third proviso to S.N.2 of the explanation to the notification (treatment where retail sale price is not required to be declared and thus not declared) - first proviso to S.N.2 of the explanation (wholesale packages with declared retail sale price) - Assessee entitled to exemption under S.N.1A of Notification No.4/2007-CE for clearances in 50 kg bags where retail sale price was declared on each bag. - HELD THAT: - The proviso relied upon by Revenue applies only where the retail sale price is not required to be declared under the Packaged Commodities Rules and consequently has not been declared. In the present case the retail sale price was declared on each 50 kg bag, so the mischief of the third proviso is not attracted. The first proviso to S.N.2 mandates that where wholesale packages contain standard packages with declared retail sale price, that declared retail sale price is to be taken into consideration. Although Sagar Cements was supported by a letter from the Controller of Legal Metrology, the determinative legal principle is that declaration on the packages suffices to attract S.N.1A. The Tribunal distinguished Rain Commodities where clearances were in bulk; that factual distinction was upheld and the present facts align with Sagar Cements. On this basis the demand based on denial of S.N.1A is unsustainable and is set aside. [Paras 13]

Benefit of Notification S.N.1A allowed; demand set aside on merits.

Extended period of limitation under proviso to Section 11A - requirement of fraud/collusion/wilful misstatement or suppression - Invocation of the extended period of limitation was not justified; demand was time barred. - HELD THAT: - No evidence of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression with intent to evade duty was produced. The assessee had filed ER-1 returns and the matter was a claim disputed by Revenue; in such circumstances the extended limitation proviso cannot be invoked without proof of the requisite culpable conduct. Absent such evidence, the demand should have been raised within the normal limitation period and is therefore time barred. [Paras 14]

Extended period invocation rejected; demand also unsustainable on limitation grounds.

Penalty under Central Excise Rules and Act including personal penalty on official - Interest and penalties, including the personal penalty on the Chief Manager, do not survive once the demand is set aside. - HELD THAT: - As the substantive demand for duty has been set aside on merits and on limitation, consequential imposition of interest and penalties cannot be sustained. There being no finding of fraud, collusion or wilful suppression, the conditions justifying penalties (including the personal penalty imposed under the Central Excise Rules) are absent. Accordingly, the question of interest and penalties does not arise. [Paras 15]

Interest and penalties, including the personal penalty on the Chief Manager, set aside.

Final Conclusion: Appeals allowed; impugned order set aside with consequential reliefs - assessee entitled to Notification S.N.1A for clearances March 2007 to February 2009, demand time barred, and interest and penalties (including personal penalty) quashed.

Transfer of property in goods involved in the execution of a works contract - works contract deemed divisible by Article 366(29-A) - such transfer, delivery or supply of any goods shall be deemed to be a sale - taxability of goods component under Section 3-B of the TNGST Act - deduction of labour charges and other like charges under Section 3-B(2)(e) - distinction between consumables consumed in process and goods transferred by accretion/appropriation

Transfer of property in goods involved in the execution of a works contract - works contract deemed divisible by Article 366(29-A) - taxability of goods component under Section 3-B of the TNGST Act - distinction between consumables consumed in process and goods transferred by accretion/appropriation - Purchase of ink for printing polythene rolls is exigible to tax under Section 3-B of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. - HELD THAT: - The Court applied the legal fiction introduced by Article 366(29-A) by which an indivisible works contract may be bifurcated into a contract for sale of goods and a contract for supply of labour and services, making the goods component exigible to sales tax. The reasoning follows the Constitution Bench and subsequent Supreme Court decisions (Builders Association of India; Gannon Dunkerley II; Associated Cement; Pro Lab) that the amended Article enlarges the scope of 'tax on sale or purchase of goods' to include transfers of property in goods involved in works contracts and that such transfers are deemed sales. The Court examined whether printing ink loses character as goods when used and accepted the view that ink is tangible property which, upon application to the substrate (papers/polythene rolls), results in a transfer/appropriation that is taxable under Section 3-B. The Madras High Court's prior interpretations recognising that ink and like materials used in printing may amount to transfer of property in goods were followed, and the statutory deduction mechanism under Section 3-B(2)(e) (allowing deduction for labour and like charges) remains the method for determining the taxable goods component. [Paras 36, 40, 41, 57, 58]

The purchase and use of ink for printing is exigible to tax under Section 3-B; the reference is answered in favour of the Revenue.

Taxability of goods component under Section 3-B of the TNGST Act - distinction between consumables consumed in process and goods transferred by accretion/appropriation - deduction of labour charges and other like charges under Section 3-B(2)(e) - Earlier Division Bench decisions of this Court that declined to apply the post-46th Amendment jurisprudence on works contracts are overruled to the extent they conflict with authoritative Supreme Court and Full Bench precedents. - HELD THAT: - Having reviewed the trajectory of authority - the 46th Amendment, the decision upholding its vires, and later Supreme Court pronouncements construing Article 366(29-A) to permit bifurcation and taxation of the goods component - the Court concluded that several Division Bench decisions which failed to apply that jurisprudence (including those relying on pre-amendment reasoning or on decisions held per incuriam) did not state the correct law. The Court therefore overruled those Division Bench decisions to the extent they are inconsistent with the binding authorities (as summarised in the judgment) and affirmed that the correct approach is to treat the goods component as taxable while allowing deductions/exclusions (including labour charges) as provided in Section 3-B(2). [Paras 46, 48, 49, 55, 58]

Conflicting Division Bench decisions are overruled insofar as they are inconsistent with the Supreme Court and Full Bench authorities; the correct position of law as stated in the judgment prevails.

Final Conclusion: The reference is answered for the Revenue: ink used for printing polythene rolls is taxable under Section 3-B of the TNGST Act (Assessment Year 2003 -2004); prior contrary Division Bench decisions of this Court are overruled to the extent inconsistent with binding higher authority. The writ appeal is dismissed.

Limitation for reassessment under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act - Illegality of retrospective amendment extending limitation - Quashing of time barred assessment order - Rectification of assessment under Section 66

Limitation for reassessment under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act - Quashing of time barred assessment order - Assessment order dated 26th March 2019 under Section 25(1) insofar as it seeks to revise assessment for the year 2011-12 after expiry of the statutory period. - HELD THAT: - The Court noted that the limitation for initiating revision under Section 25(1) in the present matter had expired on 31st March 2018. The impugned assessment order is dated 26th March 2019 and was therefore issued after the lapse of the prescribed period. In view of the earlier decision in Baiju A.A. & Ors. v. State Tax Officer & Ors., the amendment effected by the Kerala Finance Act, 2018 which purported to extend the limitation was held to be beyond legislative competence and therefore ineffective. Applying that ratio, the Court held that the revisional proceedings initiated by the respondents after the statutory limitation period were time barred and devoid of merit. [Paras 2, 4]

The assessment order dated 26th March 2019 is quashed as time barred and not sustainable.

Illegality of retrospective amendment extending limitation - Rectification of assessment under Section 66 - Effect of the declared illegality of the 2018 amendment to Section 25 on the rectification application under Section 66 and consequential proceedings. - HELD THAT: - The petitioner had filed a rectification petition under Section 66 after receipt of the assessment order; the assessing authority made limited adjustments. However, the Court observed that the fundamental defect was the initiation of revisional assessment after the limitation period. Since the extension of limitation by the State Finance Act, 2018 has been declared unconstitutional and inapplicable, the rectification and consequential proceedings could not cure the jurisdictional bar created by the lapse of time. Consequently, the impugned assessment and consequential order could not be sustained. [Paras 2, 4]

Rectification and consequential proceedings could not validate a revisional assessment that was time barred; consequential orders vitiated and liable to be set aside.

Final Conclusion: Writ petition allowed; the revisional assessment order dated 26th March 2019 and consequential proceedings are quashed as time barred in view of the invalidity of the attempted extension of limitation, accordingly the impugned orders stand set aside.