Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai v. M/S. Sanmina Sci India Pvt. Ltd., Oz

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Judgment reserved on: 17.10.2016 Judgment pronounced on:08.08.2017 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO&THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH Tax Case (Appeal) No.567 of 2016 Commissioner of Income Tax,Chennai ... AppellantVersus M/s. Sanmina SCI India Pvt. Ltd.,OZ-1, SIPCOT Hi Tech SEZ,Oragadam, Sriperumbudur Taluk,Kancheepuram District,Tamilnadu 602 105. ... Respondent Appeal against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,Madras “D” Bench, dated 24.7.2015, passed in ITANo.1194/Mds/2014 against the order of the Deputy Commissioner ofthe Income Tax, Company Circle VI(1) Chennai 34 dated 20.02.2014made in PAN/GIR No.AA FCS 8737E for the assessment year 2009-10and against the order of Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,Transfer Processing Officer in Chennai dated 09.01.2013 inCR.Nos.614/TPD-VI/AY 2009-2010 For Appellant : Mr.J. NarayanasamyFor Respondent : Mr. N.V.Balaji J U D G M E N T(Judgment of the Court was delivered by Anita Sumanth, J.) This appeal is filed challenging the order of the Income taxAppellate tribunal (hereinafter referred to as tribunal) dated24.7.2015 in relation to the assessment year 2009-10. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. The substantial questions of law raised are as follows;“ 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case the tribunal was right in holding that theassessing officer has no jurisdiction to set off thelosses prior to computation of deduction 10A in theorder passed u/s.143(3) r/w.144C being the givingeffect to order of the DRP proceedings, by relying onthe provisions of section 144C (13)? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case the tribunal was right in holding that theassessing officer has no jurisdiction to set off thelosses prior to computation of deduction 10A in theorder passed under section 143(3) r/w.144C being thegiving effect to order of the DRP proceedings on theground that Assessing officer had not proposed suchset off of losses in the draft assessment orderwithout appreciatin(hereinafter referred to as ' Act')g that the said order had dealt with computation ofdeduction under section 10A and had also taken noteof the losses to be set off.” 3. FACTS IN BRIEF: 1. The provisions of the Income tax Act 1961 (hereinafterreferred to as 'Act') set out a special scheme for theassessment of an entity engaged in International transactionsunder Chapter X of the Act, in terms of s.144C(1) to s.144C(14)of the Act. Pursuant to a reference under section 92 C A(1) ofthe Act, an order of Transfer Pricing determining the ArmsLength Price of International transactions was passed by theTransfer Pricing Officer culminating in an order of draftassessment under Section 143(3) r/w.Section 144C(1) of the Acton 31.3.2013. The order of draft assessment effected thefollowing variation: (i) An adjustment to the arms length price inaccordance with the order of the Transfer PricingOfficer (ii) An adjustment to the computation of reliefunder s.10A of the Act by excluding insurance andtele-communication expenses only from the exportturnover (numerator) while retaining the same inthe total turnover (denominator) in the formulaprescribed thereunder. (2) Objections were filed by the Assessee/Respondent before theDispute Resolution Panel, (hereinafter referred to as 'DRP' )which, by order dated 20.12.2013, issued directions in relationto the Transfer Pricing adjustment as well as the issue of claimof relief under section 10 A of the Act. Consequence was given https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (i) An adjustment to the arms length price inaccordance with the order of the Transfer PricingOfficer (ii) An adjustment to the computation of reliefunder s.10A of the Act by excluding insurance andtele-communication expenses only from the exportturnover (numerator) while retaining the same inthe total turnover (denominator) in the formulaprescribed thereunder. (2) Objections were filed by the Assessee/Respondent before theDispute Resolution Panel, (hereinafter referred to as 'DRP' )which, by order dated 20.12.2013, issued directions in relationto the Transfer Pricing adjustment as well as the issue of claimof relief under section 10 A of the Act. Consequence was given https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ to the directions of the DRP vide order of final assessmentpassed under section 143(3) r.w.s.92CA r.w.s.144 C of the Actvide order dated 20.2.2014. While doing so, the AssessingAuthority proceeds to also introduce a new disallowance notcontemplated in the draft order of assessment being theaggregation of income/loss from variations sources under thesame head of income prior to allowance of relief under s.10A. Hecomes to the conclusion, relying on Circular issued by theCentral Board of Direct Taxes No.vii/D/V/2013 dated 16.7.2013that since the aggregation resulted in a loss of an amount ofRs.16,15,76,717/-, there was no profit, as a result that reliefunder s.10A of an amount of Rs.2.98 crores was not liable to beallowed. The returned loss of an amount of Rs.19,14,03,268/- wasthus reduced to the extent of deduction under s.10A of an amountof Rs.2.98 crores. The final order of assessment dated 20.2.2014was challenged before the Income tax Appellate Tribunal(hereinafter referred to as Tribunal). 4. The main contention of the Assessee was to the effectthat the variation relating to reduction of losses on the basisof CBDT circular No.vii/D/V/2013 dated 16.7.2013 was illegal inso far as it neither emanated from the order of draft assessmentnor from the directions of the DRP and was thus not in line withthe statutory mandate of section 144(C)(13) of the act. TheTribunal, after due consideration of the issue, accepted thecontention of the Assessee, setting aside the adjustmenteffected by the Assessing Officer in relation to treatment ofbrought forward losses prior to allowance of deduction undersection 10 A of the Act. The department was directed to grantdeduction first prior to effecting adjustment of brought forwardlosses. It is against the aforesaid order that the Income taxDepartment has filed the present appeal. 5. The thrust of the submissions of Mr.Narayanasamy learnedSenior Standing Counsel appearing for the Appellant was to theeffect that the provisions of section 144C(13) have been dulycomplied with since the issue of relief u/s.10A formed part andparcel of the order of draft assessment. Our attention was drawnto the order of draft assessment to point out that an adjustmenthas indeed been effected to the computation of relief unders.10A even at the first instance though admittedly the issuedealt with was different and did not concern priority in the setoff of losses. 6. Per contra, Sri N.V.Balaji, learned counsel appearing forthe Assessee/Respondent would contend that the issues dealt within the draft order of assessment vis-à-vis those which arose inthe final order of assessment were entirely different and assuch the mandate of section 144 C(13) stood violated. He drew acomparison between the provisions of section 144C and theprovisions of section 144B (since omitted w.e.f. 1.4.1989) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6. Per contra, Sri N.V.Balaji, learned counsel appearing forthe Assessee/Respondent would contend that the issues dealt within the draft order of assessment vis-à-vis those which arose inthe final order of assessment were entirely different and assuch the mandate of section 144 C(13) stood violated. He drew acomparison between the provisions of section 144C and theprovisions of section 144B (since omitted w.e.f. 1.4.1989) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ stating that the two were in paramateria with each other.Reliance was placed upon various judgments in the context oferstwhile s.144 B, in support of the submission that theAssessing Officer has no jurisdiction to traverse beyond thevariations proposed in the draft order of assessment and thedirections issued by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (interms of Section 144B) of the Act. 7. We have heard the submissions of the Learned Counselappearing on both sides. Section 144C of the Act was insertedvide Finance (2) Act 2009 with retrospective effect from1.4.2009 to provide for a scheme of assessment in respect ofmatters that included Transfer Pricing adjustments. It is a selfcontained code and the sequence of events as contemplatedthereunder are as follows; 144C(1) - An order of draft assessment proposing avariation to the income or losses returned by an Assesseeis to be forwarded to the assessee by the AssessingOfficer. 144C(2) - Upon receipt thereof, an Assessee is given twooptions to be exercised within thirty (30) days of receiptof the draft order - either to accept the draft order andintimate the assessing officer accordingly or fileobjections to the proposed variations with the DRP and theAssessing Officer. 144C(3) - If option (1) is exercised by the Assessee orobjections not received within the specified period, thenthe Assessing Officer shall complete the assessment on thebasis of the draft order. 144C(4) - A time limit of one month from the end of themonth in which acceptance is received or the period forfiling of objection expires, is provided for passing of theorder of final assessment in terms of Section 144C(3). 144C(5) - Where objections are filed by an assessee, theDRP shall issue such directions as it thinks fit enablingthe Assessing Officer to complete and issue the order offinal assessment. Sub Sections (6), (7), (8) and (9) of s.144C set out theprocedure to be followed by the DRP in issuance ofdirections. 144C(10) – This sub-section mandates that every directionissued by the DRP shall be binding on the Assessing Officer. 144C(11) ensures adherence to the principles of naturaljustice by the DRP, protecting the interests of theAssessee as well as Revenue prior to the issuance ofdirections. 144C(12) stipulates a time limit of nine (9) months from the end of the month when the draft order is forwarded tothe Assessee for the issuance of directions. 144C(13) - Upon receipt of the directions of the DRP, theAssessing Officer shall pass an order of final assessmentin conformity with the directions of the DRP within onemonth from the end of the month in which the direction isreceived. The provision specifies that there shall be norequirement for affording an opportunity of being heard tothe Assessee prior to passing of an order of finalassessment. 144C(11) ensures adherence to the principles of naturaljustice by the DRP, protecting the interests of theAssessee as well as Revenue prior to the issuance ofdirections. 144C(12) stipulates a time limit of nine (9) months from the end of the month when the draft order is forwarded tothe Assessee for the issuance of directions. 144C(13) - Upon receipt of the directions of the DRP, theAssessing Officer shall pass an order of final assessmentin conformity with the directions of the DRP within onemonth from the end of the month in which the direction isreceived. The provision specifies that there shall be norequirement for affording an opportunity of being heard tothe Assessee prior to passing of an order of finalassessment. 8. The question posed relates essentially to whether theimpugned order of Final Assessment dated 20.2.014 is an excessof jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer or within the powersgranted to him in terms of s.144C of the Act. The answer revealsitself on an analysis of the Scheme itself. The tone is set insub-section (1) thereof wherein the role of an Assessing Officerand the limits of his jurisdiction are demarcated, in that, theorder of draft assessment is to set out the proposed variationsand forward the same to the Assessee for response. Then again,sub-section (3) of 144C requires the Assessing Officer tocomplete the assessment on the basis of the draft order. Insetting out the scope of the DRP to issue directions, sub-section (6) restricts the DRP to consideration of the draftorder and the objections filed by the Assessee along withconnected evidence, report, records, and enquiries. 9. It is only in sub-section (8) where the power ofenhancement is granted to the DRP, that the scope of thevariations as proposed under section 144C(1) stand expanded. Theinterests of both the Assessee and the Revenue to respond to theproposed variations has been protected and an opportunity to beheard has been specifically provided for under sub-section (11).Thus where Legislature provided for any variation in assessmentover and above that proposed in the order of draft assessment,it has specifically provided for an opportunity of hearing priorthereto. Thereafter in terms of sub-section (13), the AssessingOfficer is bound to conform to the directions given by the DRPand give effect to the same. Contrary to the mandate in sub-section (11), it has been thought unnecessary to grant anopportunity to the assessee prior to the passing of the finalorder. This leads to the inescapable conclusion that theAssessing Officer is not expected to, and shall not venture toraise any issue except the variations specified by him in 144C(1) in the order of draft assessment or any issue raised by theDRP by way of enhancement in terms of sub-section (8) of 144C.The scheme of s.144C would thus be wholly violated if theAssessing Officer takes it upon himself to include in the finalorder of assessment such additions/disallowance/variations thatdo not form part of the order of draft assessment. 10. Further, we do not agree with the submission of theLearned Counsel for the Appellant to the effect that since theprovisions of s.10A have been dealt with in the order ofassessment, albeit in another context, the Assessing Officer isat liberty to consider any and all aspects relating to s.10Aincluding the issue of priority in the set off of losses at thestage of final assessment. The proposition sought to be putforth is too wide to be accepted and would distort the scheme ofs.144 C as noted above. We now advert to the provisions ofs.144B and the judgments cited at the Bar in support of theirrespective submissions. 11. Section 144B omitted w.e.f. 1.4.1989, provided for aspecial scheme of assessment between the period 1.4.1976 and1.4.1989 where a proposed assessment exceeded the pecuniarylimit prescribed. The scheme of Section 144B is as follows; 11. Section 144B omitted w.e.f. 1.4.1989, provided for aspecial scheme of assessment between the period 1.4.1976 and1.4.1989 where a proposed assessment exceeded the pecuniarylimit prescribed. The scheme of Section 144B is as follows; 144B(1) – Where the Assessing Officer proposed a variationin the income or losses returned which would have theeffect of being prejudicial to the assessee and where thevariation exceeded the amount fixed by the Central Board ofDirect Taxes, a draft of the proposed order of theassessment is to be forwarded to the Assessee for response. 144B(2) - Objections to the variations contained in thedraft order may be forwarded by the Assessee within 15 daysfrom the receipt thereof or an extended period of time ifgranted by the Assessing Officer. 144B(3) - Where no objections were received by theAssessing Officer or where the Assessee accepted thevariations, the Assessing Officer was bound to complete theassessment on the basis of the draft order. 144B(4) - If objections were filed, the same shall beforwarded along with the draft order to the InspectingAssistant Commissioner (hereinafter referred to as 'IAC')who, after consideration of the same, would issuedirections in respect of the matters covered by theobjections to the Assessing Officer to enable him tocomplete the assessment. The sub-section mandated that nodirections prejudicial to the interest of the assessee maybe issued without an opportunity of hearing being grantedprior thereto. 144B(5) - Sub-section 5 stipulates that the directionsissued by the IAC shall be binding upon the AssessingOfficer. 144B(6) – Sets out the pecuniary limits for the applicationof the provision as well as other situations where thesection would not be applicable. 12. The argument of the Learned Counsel for the Revenue isto the effect that the scheme of s.144B, which according to himis in parimeteria with the scheme of s.144C, is procedural andif at all the impugned action of the Assessing Officer was heldto be erroneous, it was not fatal but liable to correction. TheLearned Counsel for the Assessee, on the other hand referred tovarious decisions in support of his submission that there couldbe no variation in the order of final assessment that had notbeen proposed in the draft assessment. We now refer to thedecisions cited at the instance of the Assessee: 13. The Apex Court in Panchmahal Steel Ltd. Vs. U.A.Joshi,ITO and another (1997) 225 ITR 458 was concerned with the powersof an Assessing Officer pursuant to issuance of Directions bythe IAC. The Bench holds in this context, as follows: ‘A reading of Section 144B shows that once a draftorder is made and the matter is referred to theInspecting Assistant Commissioner on receiving theobjections of the assessee, the function of theIncome-tax Officer practically comes to an end.Thereafter, the only remaining thing to do by him isto pass a final order of assessment pursuant to andin accordance with the directions given by theInspecting Assistant Commissioner. He cannot vary ordepart from the directions given by the InspectingAssistant Commissioner.’ A Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in the case of ExpressNewspapers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (2002) 254 ITR472 (MAD) at page 474 states as follows; ‘Having regard to the effect of the order ofapproval given by the Inspecting AssistantCommissioner under section 144B of the Act, it is clear that the Assessing Officer is not tomeddle with the draft assessment, except to the extent required for the purpose of complying with the directions, if any, given by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner.’ The judgment of Bombay High Court reported in (1999) 239 ITR 726(Bom) (Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Hade Navigation (P) Ltd)reiterates the aforesaid position as follows; A Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in the case of ExpressNewspapers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (2002) 254 ITR472 (MAD) at page 474 states as follows; ‘Having regard to the effect of the order ofapproval given by the Inspecting AssistantCommissioner under section 144B of the Act, it is clear that the Assessing Officer is not tomeddle with the draft assessment, except to the extent required for the purpose of complying with the directions, if any, given by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner.’ The judgment of Bombay High Court reported in (1999) 239 ITR 726(Bom) (Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Hade Navigation (P) Ltd)reiterates the aforesaid position as follows; ‘It is clear from the expression “the income-taxOfficer shall complete the assessment on the basisof the draft order” contained in sub-section (3) ofsection 144B of the act that even where objectionsare received by the Income-tax Officer, the onlyfunction left for him is to forward the objectionsalong with the draft order to the InspectingAssistant Commissioner and to finalise theassessment in terms of the directions of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner which are bindingon him. Once the draft assessment is prepared andthe variation in the returned income being morethan Rs.1,00,000/- the draft order is forwarded tothe assessee as required by section 144B, thequasi-judicial function of the Income-tax Officercomes to an end.’ Reliance was placed on the decision of the Division Bench of theMadhya Pradesh High Court in the matter of Banarsidas Bhanot andsons vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madhya Pradesh – II, (1981)(129 ITR 488) (MP). The Learned Senior Standing Counsel however,stressed on the fact that the assessment, in this matter, wasultimately remanded to the file of the Assessing Officer andthus supported his submission. We will return to the aforesaiddecisions presently. 14. The decisions relied on by the Learned Standing Counselfor the proposition that the provisions of s.144B are onlyprocedural are as follows: 15. The question for determination in the present appeal canbe decided on the language of s.144C and does not call for anycomparison with s.144B. However, in so far as the comparison hasbeen made, we proceed to address the same. While the scheme ofassessment set out in s.144B and s.144C appear to be similarupto a point, there is a material and substantive differencetherein that is brought about by the presence of sub-section(13) in s.144C. Both provisions remain similar upto the stage ofdisposal of objections by IAC/DRP, i.e., the proposal ofspecific variations in a draft order, grant of opportunity tothe Assessee to respond, acceptance thereof or objectionsthereto raised by the Assessee, completion of assessment on thebasis of draft order or forwarding to the IAC/DRP the draftorder along with objections, consideration of the proposedvariations along with the objections and connected records bythe IAC/DRP and the mandate to grant an opportunity of hearingby the IAC/DRP. Thus there is a commonality of strategy thatflows through s.144 B(1) to (4) and 144 C (1) to (9). The minordifferences in the approach inter se are not relevant and arethus not adverted to. Sub-section (5) of Section 144 B emphasizes the binding nature of the directions issued by theIAC upon the Assessing Officer and is mirrored by the provisionsof sub-section (10) of s.144C which mandates that everydirection issued by the DRP by binding upon the AssessingOfficer. There the comparison ends. S.144 B proceeds thereafterto deal with other incidental matters in sub-sections (6) and(7) thereof and s.144 C proceeds, in sub-section (12) to set atime limit for the issuance of the directions by the DRP. emphasizes the binding nature of the directions issued by theIAC upon the Assessing Officer and is mirrored by the provisionsof sub-section (10) of s.144C which mandates that everydirection issued by the DRP by binding upon the AssessingOfficer. There the comparison ends. S.144 B proceeds thereafterto deal with other incidental matters in sub-sections (6) and(7) thereof and s.144 C proceeds, in sub-section (12) to set atime limit for the issuance of the directions by the DRP. 16. Sub-section 13, the interpretation of which is a subjectmatter of this appeal contains a substantive mandate cast uponthe assessing officer in the following terms as extracted below.It is relevant to mention, at this stage that there is noequivalent in s.144B to sub-section (13) of s.144C. ‘(13) Upon receipt of the directions issued undersub-section (5), the Assessing Officer shall, inconformity with the directions, complete,notwithstanding anything to the contrary containedin section 153 (or section 153B), the assessmentwithout providing any further opportunity of beingheard to the assessee, within one month from theend of the month in which such direction isreceived.’ 17. Sub-section (13) of s.144 C is specific and mandatesthat the Assessing Officer shall issue the order of finalassessment in conformity with the directions of the DRP withoutprovision of any further opportunity of being heard to theassessee, within one month from the end of the month, in whichthe directions are received. There is thus a vital distinctionin the scheme of assessment as provided under s.144 B vis-a-visthat which is set out in s.144C. While the Assessing Officer interms of s.144 B is bound by the directions issued by the IAC,the Statute is silent as regards any fetter to his powersotherwise. Contrast this with sub-section (13) of s.144C, theelements of which have been set out in detail above. It revealsa conscious decision by Legislature to limit the independentparticipation of the Assessing Officer in the process ofassessment only to the stage of proposal of variations in termsof s.144C(1) and not thereafter. The express language of sub-section (13) thereof would admit of no other interpretation. 18. Insistences in taxing statutes where the Assessee hasbeen specifically denied an opportunity of hearing are few andfar between. On the contrary the principles of natural justiceare always enforced in favour of the Assessee and Courts have,even when a provision is silent in regard to the provision ofopportunity, read the requirement into the statutory provision.The powers of an Assessing Officer under sub-section (13) of 144C have clearly been limited to giving consequence to the directions of DRP and cannot extend any further. Any attempt bythe Assessing Officer to delve beyond would result in greatprejudice to an Assessee in the light of the express stipulationthat no opportunity is to be provided and an interpretation tofurther such a conclusion would be wholly unacceptable andcontrary to law. directions of DRP and cannot extend any further. Any attempt bythe Assessing Officer to delve beyond would result in greatprejudice to an Assessee in the light of the express stipulationthat no opportunity is to be provided and an interpretation tofurther such a conclusion would be wholly unacceptable andcontrary to law. 19. Sub-section (4) of 144 B does not contain the elementsof sub-section (13) of s.144C including the stipulationregarding the non-grant of opportunity to an Assessee and thepowers of an Assessing Officer thereunder would consequently bewider. The decisions of the High Courts cited by the LearnedStanding Counsel have necessarily to be seen in this contextonly, and thus are of no assistance to him. The submissions ofthe Learned Standing Counsel in regard to the decision of the MPHigh Court in 129 ITR 488 are also rejected in the light of theobservations at page 492 of the judgment, extracted below. TheDivision Bench clarifies the position that the draft order hasset out in detail the specific additions and disallowances thathad been proposed and had merely lacked the computation of totalincome. The matter was remanded after noting specifically thatthe remand was for a reason that would not be prejudicial to theAssessee, In the present case, however, the Department seeks tobring in an entirely different disallowance in the final orderof assessment which would certainly cause prejudice to theassessee and for which, admittedly, no opportunity has beengranted. ‘In the instant case, the draft order containedthe various additions and disallowances which theITO proposed in making the assessment underdifferent heads and, therefore, there was fullopportunity to the assessee to meet the proposedvariations in the income returned by it. Thedraft order was wanting merely in the computationof total income, the necessary material for whichwas already mentioned in the order. The defect inthe draft order was, therefore, not such whichcould have in any way caused prejudice to theassessee.’ 20. Acceptance of the proposition advanced by the Departmentwould tantamount to giving leave to the Assessing Officer topass more than one order of assessment in the course of a singleproceeding, which is not envisaged in the scheme of the Act.Subsequent assessments either rectifying, revising or reopeningthe original assessment are permitted by exercising specifiedpowers under different statutory provisions. The order of draftassessment under section 144C(1) is for all intents and purposesan order of original assessment though in draft form. In thislight of the matter, the order of the Tribunal to this effect is right in law and calls for no interference. 21. The variation in the order of final assessment dated22.2.2014 relating to the priority of set off of losses ispurely misconceived and an excess of jurisdiction by theAssessing Officer in terms of s.144C(13) of the Act. Thequestions of law are thus answered in favour of the Assessee andagainst the Department. The Tax Case Appeal is dismissed. 22. Upon conclusion of the hearing, the Senior StandingCounsel sought leave to pursue other remedies available underthe Act which we are not inclined to consider in view of thefact that they do not arise from the proceedings impugned beforeus. It is left for the department to pursue such action as itmay deem fit that is strictly in accordance with the provisionsof law. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS VIII) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar msrTo1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,Madras “D” Bench 2.The Deputy Commissioner of Income TaxeCompany Circle-VI(1) 7th floor New Block 121 Mahatma Gandhi RoadChennai-34 3.The Commissioner of Income Tax,Chennai-34 +1 cc to M/s.J.Narayanaswamy Advocate sr 57541+1 cc to M/s.Balaji Advocate sr 57552 Tax Case (Appeal) No.567 of 2016 mp(co)aa13/09 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/