Haryana Warehousing Corporation v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax And Another

-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 21169 of 2010 (O&M)Date of Decision: 28.1.2011 Haryana Warehousing Corporation Versus Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and another ....Petitioner. ...Respondents. CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL.HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Rajesh Garg, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Yogesh Putney, Advocate for the respondents. ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1.This order will dispose of CWP Nos. 21169 and 21187 of2010 as both the petitions involve common question. 2.The petitioner is a statutory body under the provisions ofWarehousing Corporation Act, 1962. It claimed its income to be exemptunder Section 10(29) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”)which was accepted by the Assessing Officer but the Commissioneracting under Section 263 of the Act, set aside the assessment on theground that only specified income i.e. income derived from letting out ofgodowns for storage etc. was eligible for exemption and the remainingincome was taxable. Accordingly, the petitioner was held to be liable topay tax with interest under Section 234B of the Act on income which was taxable. It sought waiver of interest on the basis of circular dated23.5.1996 read with circular dated 11.1.1997 issued by the CBDT layingdown that if exemption from income tax is granted on the basis of orderof the jurisdictional High Court, the interest component could be waivedif such income becomes taxable. In the earlier round of litigation, thematter was remanded for reconsideration as waiver was declined onlyon the ground that the earlier judgment of this Court was not in the caseof the petitioner which was not a valid ground. Thereafter, theimpugned order dated 15.6.2010 (Annexure P-13) has been passedholding that there being no earlier view of this Court that the incomeother than the income derived from letting out of godowns was exempt,the circular providing for waiver was not applicable. The judgment ofthe jurisdictional High Court relied upon on behalf of the petitioner being Commissioner of Income Tax v. Haryana WarehousingCorporation, (1978) 112 ITR 374 was only to the effect that thepetitioner was covered under Section 10(29) of the Act and did not laydown that the income now taxed was exempt. The income other thanthe income from letting out of storage etc. was taxable as held by theHon'ble Supreme Court in Orissa State Warehousing Corporationand Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation v. Commissioner ofIncome-tax (1999) 237 ITR 589. 3.We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 4.It is not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner thatin terms of judgment of this Court in Haryana WarehousingCorporation (supra) and in view of the judgment of the Hon'bleSupreme Court in Orissa State Warehousing Corporation (supra) as CWP No. 21169 of 2010 well as the provision of Section 10(29), the income other than theincome from letting of godown etc. was not exempt. There was noearlier judgment taking the view that such income was exempt. Thisbeing the position, the petitioner is not entitled to waiver in terms of thecirculars relied upon, as held in the impugned order. No interference is,thus, called for. 5.Accordingly, the petitions are dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE January 28, 2011 gbs (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL)JUDGE -4- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 21187 of 2010 (O&M)Date of Decision: 28.1.2011 Haryana Warehousing Corporation Versus Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and another ....Petitioner. ...Respondents. CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL.HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Rajesh Garg, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Yogesh Putney, Advocate for the respondents. ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. For orders, see CWP No. 21169 of 2010 (HaryanaWarehousing Corporation v. Chief Commissioner of Income Taxand another). 5.Accordingly, the petitions are dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE January 28, 2011 gbs (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL)JUDGE -4- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 21187 of 2010 (O&M)Date of Decision: 28.1.2011 Haryana Warehousing Corporation Versus Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and another ....Petitioner. ...Respondents. CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL.HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Rajesh Garg, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Yogesh Putney, Advocate for the respondents. ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. For orders, see CWP No. 21169 of 2010 (HaryanaWarehousing Corporation v. Chief Commissioner of Income Taxand another). (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE January 28, 2011 gbs (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE