Wp/11247/2023 Of M/S. Virchow Drugs Limited v. The Income Tax Officer

[ [3sB6 ]] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF SEPTE[/BERTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENTTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY WRIT PETITION NO: 11247 OF 2023 Between: I\//s. Virchow Drugs Limited, (Transferee and Successor company to Siri Drugs lndiaPrivate Limited), Having its Registered Office at Plot No.9 S.V. Co,Operativelndustrial Estate I.D.A. Jeedimetla, HYDERABAD-S0O 055, Rep. by its Director SriPrasanth Nandigala. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The lncome Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), C.R. Building, lvl.G. Road VIJAYAWADA-52O 0O2 Andhra Pradesh52O 0O2 Andhra Pradesh 52O 2. Principal Chief Commissionerof lncome Tax, AP and TS, lncome Tax TowersA C Guards, firlasab Tank Hyderabad-500004A C Guards, firlasab Tank Hyderabad-500004 3. Union of lndia, Through Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi-1 10001...RESPONDENTS...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may bepleased to pass an order or direction, especially one in the nature of WRIT OFMANDAMUS holding that the order passed by respondent u/s.14BA(d) of the Act,d1.24.03.2023 with DIN.ITBA/ASIlFl148A12022-2311051256350(1) and the noticedated 24.03.2023 issued under section 148 of the Act with DIN.ITBA/AST/S/148112022-2311051256845(1)for the assessment year 2016-17 against SlRl DRUGSINDIA PRIVATE LIMTIED (PAN. ) as being illegal, arbitrary, withoutapplicatron of mind apart from being violative of judgements of Hon'ble HighCourts and Hon'ble Supreme Court, and consequently set aside the same lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under S3ction 151 CPC praying that in the circunst;rnces stated inthe affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court ma/ be pleased to stayall further proceedirrgs [pursuant ]to notice issued by the R:spondent, dated24.03.2023, under s,rction 148 of the Act for the assessment [vear ]2016-17 withDl N:ITBA/AST/SI 1 48 _1 12022- 2311 051 25684s( 1 ) Counsel for the Peti ioner : SRI BOMMAREDY GANGADHAFA REDDY Counsel for the Resi>ondent Nos.1 & 2 : Ms. SUNDARI R PISUI)Ai-|, SENIORSTANDING COUNSE L FOR INCOME TAX DEPARTMENIT Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : SRI GADI PRAVEEI{ KUt\lAR, STANDINGCOUNSEL FOR C.G. The Court made the following: ORDER II THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYAND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTYWRIT PETITION No.11247 of 2023 ORDER: (1trt tknt tte Srr ir.rsrrr-r,P.SIM I(OSIIY/ The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 24.03.2023, passed bythe respondent No. | /'fhe Income Tax Oflicer vide DIN &Noticc No. ITBA/AST/S/ 148A12022-231 losr256350(1),under Section 148A (d) of the Income Tax Act, 196 1 (forshort 'the Act') for the assessment year 2Ol6-20L7 againstSiri Drugs India Private Limited. The aforesaid company i.e.Siri Drugs Indiva Private Limited since had got merged withthe petitioner's Company under the scheme ofamalgamation with effect from O1.04.2015, the challenge isalso to the consequence notice under Section 148 of theAct.2. Heard Mr. Bommareddy Gangadhara Reddy, learnedcounsei for the petitioner, Ms. Sundari R.Pisupati, Iearnedcounsel for lespondent Nos. I & 2 ald Mr. Gadi Praveen { I I(urnar, lcarned Scnior Standing Counsel lor rcspondentNo.3. petitioner assailing the order dated 24.03.2023, passed bythe respondent No. | /'fhe Income Tax Oflicer vide DIN &Noticc No. ITBA/AST/S/ 148A12022-231 losr256350(1),under Section 148A (d) of the Income Tax Act, 196 1 (forshort 'the Act') for the assessment year 2Ol6-20L7 againstSiri Drugs India Private Limited. The aforesaid company i.e.Siri Drugs Indiva Private Limited since had got merged withthe petitioner's Company under the scheme ofamalgamation with effect from O1.04.2015, the challenge isalso to the consequence notice under Section 148 of theAct.2. Heard Mr. Bommareddy Gangadhara Reddy, learnedcounsei for the petitioner, Ms. Sundari R.Pisupati, Iearnedcounsel for lespondent Nos. I & 2 ald Mr. Gadi Praveen { I I(urnar, lcarned Scnior Standing Counsel lor rcspondentNo.3. 3. A Comp:rny Petition rvas liled befor,: this Fliqh Courtvide C.P.No.4t of 2016 seeking sanction of thc s,:heme ofamalgamation of Siri Drugs Inclia Priv:rte Limit,:d \\,ith thepetitioner's Company i.e. M/s. Virchor,r'Drugs Limited. Thesaid comJrany pctition finally stood allou,e, l vid: rrrler dated30.03.20 16. The High Court ir.r the coursie of alloning thecompany pet tion, orderecl zrpproval of the sc heme ofamalgamation rvhich stood a1;proved ir.r t,re mcr:tirrg of theBoard of Directors of the transf'eror Comprrny i.c. S:ri DrugsIndia Private Lirnited on O4.O I .2O 16, san<:tionin;3 the effectof the amalgamation from the appointerl date i.e.01.04.2015. l.s a consequence of the apploual of thescheme by the High Court, thc transferor Comurrll i.e. SiriDrugs India Private Limited stood dissolve,-l rvit [-r ]eficct from01.04.2015. Tlrereafter, it stoocl merged with tlre transfereeCompany1.eM/s. Virchow Drugs Limitt,d. As aconsequence c f the dissolutior-r of the saLd Ct,nrpiuly, thetransferor Conrpany i.e Siri Drugs Indie Private Limited became non-existing. Since 01.04.2015 onwards it was onlythe amalgamating Company i.e. transferee Company wl-richremained in existence along u,ith the assets and liabilities ofthe amalgamated Company.the amalgamating Company i.e. transferee Company wl-richremained in existence along u,ith the assets and liabilities ofthe amalgamated Company. 4. Though Siri Drugs India Private Limited stooddissolved with effect from 01.04.2015, the respondent No.1had issucd a notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act in thename of the said non-cxisting Company i.e. Siri Drugs IndiaPrivate Limited, alleging escapement of income for theassessment year 2016-2017 to the extent ofRs.3,06,25,283 / -. 5. The petitioner entered appearance and raised objectionas to the veracity ol the notice when it stands issuedagainst the Company u,hich ceases to exist and whichbecame non-existing since O1.04.2015. Though [the]objection was raised by the petitioner on issuance of noticeon a non-existing Compan-y, the respondent No.1 ignoringthe said fact held that it was a fit case for issuance of [notice]under Section 148 of the Act for the [assessment year 2016-] 201,7 . It is this proceeclit'rgs u'hich is uuder clrallc,-rge rn thepresent [,rlt l)ctltlon. 6. Learned c:ounsel lor tht' pctitioner t'ontcttrlc<1 that theHon'ble Supreme Court o[ Inclia itself in one r,f [t ]I're recentdecisiorrs in ttre case of' PCIT Vs. Mantti Su:zu,ki (India)Limitedt dezLling with a sorncrvhat similar [';itu::tion ]heldthat initiatir g proceedings irnd lrarnirrg ol zts;scssmentagainstilnon-existing Companyl.c. a(lo lr l)a n], rvhichstood amalgamated is impernrissible unrl<'r tht l.lt. 7 . Accordir rg to the learne cl counsel lor- t hr: pctitioner,since the Hi1;h Court itself had given tlre alrpro.ual of thescheme of amalgamation zrnd furtlrei- ordr:rcd thedissolution o.'the transferor Company i.t'. Siri Drugs IndiaPrivate l-imiterl.11()procr:eclings could had lre<:n drawnagainst the srri<l Compzrnv as it u,as no lorrgr:r irr existence. 8. It u'as e lso the contentiorr of the k'ar-nccl <:c unsel forthe petitionr:r that in spite of tht: fact that thepetitioner/arralgamating Company having rnLinrateci the '[zorg] [(aro ]rrn er: ) 7 . Accordir rg to the learne cl counsel lor- t hr: pctitioner,since the Hi1;h Court itself had given tlre alrpro.ual of thescheme of amalgamation zrnd furtlrei- ordr:rcd thedissolution o.'the transferor Company i.t'. Siri Drugs IndiaPrivate l-imiterl.11()procr:eclings could had lre<:n drawnagainst the srri<l Compzrnv as it u,as no lorrgr:r irr existence. 8. It u'as e lso the contentiorr of the k'ar-nccl <:c unsel forthe petitionr:r that in spite of tht: fact that thepetitioner/arralgamating Company having rnLinrateci the '[zorg] [(aro ]rrn er: ) authorities concerned about the amalgamation ancl theCompany having got merged and beingnolonger1nexistence, the respondent authorities u,ithout paying heedto the objection, has proceeded further with therea ssessm erl t - 9. Accordir-rg to tl-re learncd counsel for the petitioner it isa settled position ol law that once when the Company getsmerged, the transleror Company becomes non-existingcompany. Thereafter, it is only the transferee Company orthe amalgamating Company which remains in existence. Itwas also contended that the lact that Siri Drugs IndiaPrivate Limitect beinga non-existing Company, it wasillogical on the part of the respondents in issuing directionsseeking filing of the return by a Company which no longerexrsts. 10. On the basis of the aforesaid submissions, the learnedcounsel for the petitioner prayed lor a-llowing of the [present]writ petition and quashment of the proceedings drawn. 11. Per cor'-tra, learned counsel lo:' thc r.:spondents/Income Tax Departmeltt opposing thc retitiort [<:ontcnded]that it is a c lse wherc admittedl-y, ol1 [t ][h ]c an [a ]igarnalion o[the two Cc,mpanies, neither the trrrttslt I-r'e nor thetransferor intimated the respondent auth, rritics in respect olthe amalgarr ation. It was also contencled t t;rt since thepetitioner's Cornpany or the melged Comlran.r, lriltcl in theirduty and reslronsibility of intimation oi trrrra lgiur r:ttion to therespondent ,ltrthorities, in the eyes rf lirr,', tl-re saidCompanies v'ere in existence. Thereal-te-, th' is-.;uance ofthe notices cannot be laulted u'ith, nor can L c the samesaid to bc bacl in law. 12. It u.as e lso the contention of the le arnerl counsel forthe responderrts that now that t1'r.e noticc:; hav-' be ,:n issuedunder Sectior. 148, the petitioner can e nt(rr appczllernce andmake all the :;ubmissions that they havc, incltrciinSl the pleaof amalgamation. And the respondent authorrlir:s would bescrutinizing t,rc same on its oi,l,n merits i r itci o [-clzu-rce ]witht1-re law. It wzLs further contended that. ir war rnandatorilvrequired for tee petitioner to have obtain:d a No t)bjection I Certificate lrorn the lncomc Tax Department so far as theirbeing no dues payable on its part for the purpose of gettingapproval for the scheme of amalgamation. In the absence ofNo Objection Certilicate obtained from the Income TaxDepartment and in :rddition there being no intimation givento the Income Tax Department and the amaigamatingCompany i.e. the pctitioner being located in a differentrange, the authorities concerned cannot be said to havecommitted any mistake or error while issuing the saidnotice to the amalgamating company i.e. Siri Drugs IndiaPrivate Limited. 13. This again, according to the learned counsel for therespondent can be raised by the petitioner in respect of thenotice and proceedings initiated which shall be dulyconsidered in accordance r,r'ith lau,. For this reason also, thelearned counsel prayed for rejection of the writ petition. 14. Learned counsel lor the respondent placed heavyreliance on the judgment oi the High Court of Delhi in thecase LLP I/s. Assistantof Sky Light Hospita.litg Comtnissioner of Income Tax, Circle-28(1), NetD Delhi'and contend:cl that the High Court of Dr:lhi n irn ider-rticalset of facts lrzrd refused to entertain th,,- u'r' t pctition andclirccted the amalgamatcd Companl' t o rirr:,(' all theseob.jcctior-rs arlcl grounds before the autlroril ic s [r;oncerned]thc'rnselr,es. 13. This again, according to the learned counsel for therespondent can be raised by the petitioner in respect of thenotice and proceedings initiated which shall be dulyconsidered in accordance r,r'ith lau,. For this reason also, thelearned counsel prayed for rejection of the writ petition. 14. Learned counsel lor the respondent placed heavyreliance on the judgment oi the High Court of Delhi in thecase LLP I/s. Assistantof Sky Light Hospita.litg Comtnissioner of Income Tax, Circle-28(1), NetD Delhi'and contend:cl that the High Court of Dr:lhi n irn ider-rticalset of facts lrzrd refused to entertain th,,- u'r' t pctition andclirccted the amalgamatcd Companl' t o rirr:,(' all theseob.jcctior-rs arlcl grounds before the autlroril ic s [r;oncerned]thc'rnselr,es. 15. Having heard thc contentions anc sulrrrrissions putiorth by the learned counsel appearing )n e I lrcr sidc andon perusal o.' records, some of the admi,tecl l [-ttL:r1 ]matrixof the case which neecls to be considcred is tlrirt: [rl.P.No.41]ol 2016 u,as iLllowed by High Court approving tl c :;cheme ofzrmalgamatiorr u,ith M/s. Virchou, Drugs Limi c l vide orderdated 13.03.1O16. Further, in the approv;rl of tlrc :;cheme ofamalgamatiorr by High Court, the transferor C on.Lpan-1, i.s.Siri Drugs India Private Limited got rnerlic'1 u,ith thetransferee Cc mpany1.eM,/s.Virchow D rugs [.irnited. Theapproval and sanction granted for tl're am;rlgarrir ticn is fromthe appointed date i.e. 01.04.2015. ' 1zora1 [+os rrn ][296 ][(D, ][lrh ]) 16. Another admitted fact is that, technically pursuant tothe approval of the scheme given by the High Court, thetransferor Company i.e. Siri Drugs lndia Private Limited hasbecome extinct with eflect lrom 01.O4.2015. This in otherwords also means that Siri Drugs [ndia Private Limited wasnolonger in existence from the appointed day1.e0 1.04.2015. L7. What is required to be taken note ol at this juncture isthat, the Honble Supreme Court ol India recently had anoccasion of dealing with an issue, similar to the instant writpetition in the case of Maruti Suzuki (lndia) Limited, supra.The matter which went to the Honble Supreme Court wasone where the Division Bench of the Iligh Court had upheldthe decision of the Tribunal holding that assessment andthe proceedings drawn against M/s. Suzuki PowertrainIndia Limited (for short "SPIL") is a nullity, since the saidentity had got amalgamated with Maruti Suzuki (India)Limited after the approvzrl of the scheme of amalgamation. 18. The Honble Supreme Court, in the aforesaid case,after considering the contentions raised on either side and alter [elabora-el_v ][deiiberating upon ][the ][issue, ][disnrissed ][the]appcal lllecl bf' [the ][Income ][Tax ][Departtnenl ][. ][Tl.rc ][Ilon'ble]Supremc Corrrt [affirmed ][the ][orcter ][ol ][the Div ][sion ][Bench ][of]thc High [Corrrt ][and ][that ][of ][the ][Tribunal ][hold:ng ][th:rt ][any]proccedings/assessment [initiated ][againsI ][an ][:rmirlgamated]Companv [is ][zL ][nullity in ][the ][eye of ][law.] 19. What is [also relevant ]at [this ][junc ][ut'e ]is [that, ][u,hile]dcr:iding the [said issue, ][the ][Hon'ble Stipretnt' ][Oourt ][has]consiclerc--d tt.e [tw-o ][jucigments ]cited [b-l' ][tlre ][le ]rrne,l counselInfotai.nrnent Ltd. [a]on citlrer side i.e. Spice Commissioner [of ][Income ]Tqxr relied upon [iry ]the learnedcurrnsel lor the [petitioncr ]and the [cu ]se r,f Sl<y LightHospitality [LLP. ]supra, relied upon b1'tlre le,rr-ne,l counsellor the resporLdent, both being the [judgmr:nts ]lr{)m thc HighCourts. [t is thereafter that the Hon'ble StLprerne Courtrcached to tlre aforesaid conclusion that tht' no -ices andproceedings rnitiated against the amalgama.c,,1,3ompanydescrves [to ][b< ][set ]aside/quashed '1zot:; [zaz ][crn ][soo] 20. The Hon'ble Supreme Court finallr. endorsing theearlier view ol the High Court ol Delhi in the case of SpiceInfotainment, supra, in paragraph Nos.33 to 35 held asunder: '1zot:; [zaz ][crn ][soo] 20. The Hon'ble Supreme Court finallr. endorsing theearlier view ol the High Court ol Delhi in the case of SpiceInfotainment, supra, in paragraph Nos.33 to 35 held asunder: "ht the present case, despite the fact that the AO uasinformed of the amalgamatirrg company lnuitg ceased toexist os a result of the ctpproued schetne of arnalgamation,the juisdictional notice rras issued only in its rtane. Thebcsis on uthich juisdiction was inuoked utcts .fttndatnetttallgat odds with the legal pirtciple that tlv onrctlgcunatingentity ceases to exist upon the approued scherne ofamalgamation. Parlicipatiott in the proc<'edings by theappellant in the circttmslances carTnot operate as anestoppels against lau. This position now ltolcls the filed inuieut of the judgment of a co-ordinate Benclt of ttuo leannedjudges uthich dismissed the appeal of the Reuenue in SpiceEnfotainnent on 2nd Nou., 2O 17. The clecision in SpiceEnfotainment has been followed in the case of therespondent while dismissing the Special Leaue Petition forasst. gr. 2O11-12. In doing so, lhis Court l.l.-:.s relied on thedecision in Spice Enfotainmen t. We find no reason to take a different uieu. There is a ualuetuhich ttrc Court must abide by in promoting the interest ofcertainty in tax litigation. The uietu uthich hcrs been taken bgcertainty in tax litigation. The uietu uthich hcrs been taken bgthis Court in relation to the respondent for asst. yr- 2011-12must, in our uieu be adopted in respect of the presentmust, in our uieu be adopted in respect of the presentappeal which relates to assf. yr. 2012- 13. Not doing so u-,illonly result in uncertaintg and displacement of settledexpectations. There is a signiJicant ualue uthich must attachto obseruing the requirement of consistencg and certalnty.Indiuidual affairs are conducted and business decisions arernade ['in ]the expectation of consistency, tLnifonnitg andcertaintg. To detract from those principles is neithere xp e die nt no r de sirab le.only result in uncertaintg and displacement of settledexpectations. There is a signiJicant ualue uthich must attachto obseruing the requirement of consistencg and certalnty.Indiuidual affairs are conducted and business decisions arernade ['in ]the expectation of consistency, tLnifonnitg andcertaintg. To detract from those principles is neithere xp e die nt no r de sirab le. For the reasons, tue find no meit in the appeaL. The appealis accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as tocosls. " 2L. IL is al,.o rclevant at this juncturc to ta k,-' r: ote of -yetanother recerrt clecision ol'the High Court ol l3ornll2y in thecase of SLSA INDIA (4 LrD. VS. DEPUTY COM.UilSSIOI\ER O-FINCOME 1".,4;ry [r, ]'uvlrclcin tl-re Bombay Higrr CoLrlt rciteratingthe vien' of t hc High Court of Delhi in tkre c;rse of SpiccInfotainment suprit, :rnd also following the dicltrm of theHon'ble Supr:rne Cout't in the case of Ma ruti Sr-rzrrki (lndia)Limited, supra, in paragraph Nos.7 and 8 lrzrs held asunder: "The statLd of tle Reuettue that fhe rcassellsrnetrt tuasjustified i,r ttitzu, of the fitct that the PAN in the rtrune of thetton-existe r7l entilg had remained octiue dLes not cr€ate anexception in the fauour of the Reuenue to dilute irt angnanner tL e pinciples erturrciated hereinabc'ue. Be that a:; lt tl.ag tLLe uit petition is allouL,:d. TlLe irrytugttednotice dt. 3lst March, 2021 tle order of assessntetfi c't. 3lstMarch. 2(t22 crs also tlrc consequential de,manct ttoti:e andpenalty ru,tice dt. 3 lst hlarch, 2O22 ore set aside ' 22. Giver-r tlre aloresaid facts and circumsr a rct:s of thecase and als,r the .rdmitted factual matrix, as, has been,revealed in lhe prccedir-rg paragraphs\ [re ]ar(' of theconsidered vi:r,r, that the present is als't thr: cal;e r.l hich \ "The statLd of tle Reuettue that fhe rcassellsrnetrt tuasjustified i,r ttitzu, of the fitct that the PAN in the rtrune of thetton-existe r7l entilg had remained octiue dLes not cr€ate anexception in the fauour of the Reuenue to dilute irt angnanner tL e pinciples erturrciated hereinabc'ue. Be that a:; lt tl.ag tLLe uit petition is allouL,:d. TlLe irrytugttednotice dt. 3lst March, 2021 tle order of assessntetfi c't. 3lstMarch. 2(t22 crs also tlrc consequential de,manct ttoti:e andpenalty ru,tice dt. 3 lst hlarch, 2O22 ore set aside ' 22. Giver-r tlre aloresaid facts and circumsr a rct:s of thecase and als,r the .rdmitted factual matrix, as, has been,revealed in lhe prccedir-rg paragraphs\ [re ]ar(' of theconsidered vi:r,r, that the present is als't thr: cal;e r.l hich \ sqllarel.y stands covered by the clecision of the HonbleSuprcme Court in the calse of Maruti Suzuki (India)Limited (supra), and the recent decision ol the High Courtol Boml;ay in the case of SLSA INDIA (P) LTD., (supra), andthe earlier judgment of the High Court of Delhi in the caseoI Spice lnfotainment (supra). 23. Thc present Writ Petition deserves to be and isaccordingly allowed, holding that the notice clated24.O3.2023 issued under Section 148A(d) of the Act and theconsecluential notice of the same date i,e. 24.O3.2023 underSection 148 oithe Act, both being bad in 1211,, &re set aside,as thc entire proceedings itself is against a non-existingCompany. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any,sha,ll stand closed. sDl K. AryIf\4AJlASSISTANT REGISTRAR\SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// One Fair Copy to the Honourable [Sri Justice ][P.Sam ][Koshy](For his LordshiPs kind Perusal) One Fair Copy to the Honourable [Sri Justice ][Laxmi ][Narayana ][Alishetty](For his LordshiPs kind Perusal) To 1. The lncome Tax Officer, [Ward ][3(1), ][C.R. ][Building, M.G. ][Road ] 52O 0O2 Andhra Pradesh /t 2The Principal C hief Commissioner of lncome Tax. lrP an(i TS, lncome TaxTowers A C Grrards, l\,4asab Tank Hyderabad-5000 )4Towers A C Grrards, l\,4asab Tank Hyderabad-5000 )4\The Union of lrrdia, Through lr,4inistry of Finance, North Bl:ck, lrew Delhi-1 100011 1000141 1 L. R.copies.5The Under Sec retary, Unron of lndia, ltilinistry of La'ry, Justir;e artd CompanyAffairs, New Delhi.5The Under Sec retary, Unron of lndia, ltilinistry of La'ry, Justir;e artd CompanyAffairs, New Delhi.oThe Secretary, Telangana Advocates Association Library F igh CourtBuildings, Hydr >rabad.Buildings, Hydr >rabad.7One CC to Sri 3ommaredy Gangadhara Reddy, Advocate [t)p1j",BOne CC to Ms Sundari R Pisupati. Senior Standing Counse for lncome TaxDepartment [OPUC [j]BOne CC to Ms Sundari R Pisupati. Senior Standing Counse for lncome TaxDepartment [OPUC [j] One CC to Sri 3adi Praveen Kumar, Standing Counsel fcr {).G 10Two CD Copie ; KjGJP,gGJP,g HIGH COURTDATED:20/09/2023\ ORDERWP.No.11247 of 2021 ALLOWING THE WP WITHOUT [COSTS.] 'r4 1*1lST,T€o,y'.?''*:-Q;I 1$[t'i[1$1]"a(tu tA