2018 (9) TMI 1247

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....order dated 05.09.2008 on the following substantial questions of law: "1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that MAT credit is to be set off from the tax payable before setting off the Tax Deducted at Source and Advance Tax paid ? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the MAT credit can be given priority of set off against tax payable, contrary to the scheme of Schedule G of Form 1 ? 3. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that interest u/s 234D cannot be levied in respect of assessment years prior to the introduction of the section ? 4. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt statute." 5. In the light of the above decision, the substantial questions of law Nos.1 and 2 are answered in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tulsyan NEC Limited (cited supra). 6. So far as the substantial questions of law Nos.3 and 4 are concerned, the same has also been answered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court holding that the provision, namely, Section 234D of the Act, though was inserted by the Finance Act, 2003 with effect from 01.06.2003, by virtue of the Explanation 2, which was inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 with retrospective effect from 01.06.2003 and will apply to all pending assessments before 01.06.2003. Therefore, the said substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the Revenue....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... A liability, which was not in law earlier, is sought to be foisted on a taxpayer. In those circumstances, when the Courts were called upon to interpret those provisions, it is not open to the Courts to interpret them as retrospectively and foist liability on the taxpayer which he is not liable on the date of such refund." 9. After referring to the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of J.K.Synthetics Limited V. CTO, (1994) 119 CTR (SC) 222, the Court held as follows : "10. Therefore, in the absence of any express words used in the provision making the levy of interest retrospective, it is only propsective i.e. From the day it came into force, i.e., 1st June, 2003. In fact, this view als....