Introduction
Recently in Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. General Insurance Corporation (2007)19 CLA-BL Supp 85 (SC) (decided on 25 September, 2006) (hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT Vs. GIC’) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that expenditure incurred by the company on account of stamp duty and registration fee for the issue of bonus shares is allowable expenditure. The Supreme Court has reiterated its view as already expressed in 1964 in CIT Vs. Dalmia Investment Co Ltd (1964) 52 ITR 567 (SC). However, the Gujrat High Court in Ahmedabad Mfg. & Calico Pvt Ltd Vs. CIT (1986) 162 ITR 800 (Guj) in 1986 and in other cases up to 1994 has taken a contrary view. Further, the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd Vs. CIT (1988) 174 ITR 689 (AP) and (1990) 184 ITR 70 (AP) in 1988 and up to 1990 has also taken a contrary view. It is unfortunate that Hon’ble Gujrat High Court and Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court have clearly violated the mandate of Article 141 of the Constitution; the concept is discussed in detail later on hereinafter.
1. Effect of issuance of bonus share
The effect of issuance of bonus share has been explained by the Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Dalmia Investment Co Ltd (supra) where the question of valuation of bonus share was considered. The court observed at pages 577 – 578 “It follows that though profits are profits in the hands of the company, when they are disposed of by converting them into capital instead of paying them over to the shareholders, no income can be said to accrue to the shareholders because the new shares confer a title to a larger proportion of the surplus assets at a general distribution. The floating capital used in the company which formerly consisted of subscribed capital and the reserves, now becomes the subscribed capital.”
2. Test for determining whether a particular expenditure is revenue or capital
The Supreme Court has laid down the test for determining whether a particular expenditure is revenue or capital expenditure in the case of Empire Jute Co. Ltd Vs. CIT 1980 (4) SCC 25 (in para 8) “One celebrated test is that laid down by Lord Cave, L C in Atherton Vs. British Insulated and Helsby Cables Ltd, 10 TC 155, where the learned Law Lord stated : “… when an expenditure is made, not only once and for all, but with a view to bringing into existence an asset or an advantage for the enduring benefit of a trade, there is very good reason (in the absence of special circumstances leading to an opposite conclusion) for treating such an expenditure as properly attributable not to revenue but to capital.”
3. Observations of Gujrat High Court completely contrary to the observations of Supreme Court
In CIT Vs. GIC the Supreme Court has noted that the Gujrat High Court in Ahmedabad Mfg. & Calico Pvt Ltd Vs. CIT (supra) has held that the expenses incurred towards the issuance of bonus shares is a capital expenditure and observed (in para 17) thus “the above observation is completely contrary to the observation of this court in CIT Vs. Dalmia Investment Co Ltd (supra) which judgment had not been referred to by the Gujrat High Court. In Dalmia Investment Co Ltd this court has held that floating capital used in the company which formerly consisted of subscribed capital and the reserves now becomes the subscribed capital. The conversion of the reserves into capital did not involve the release of the profits to the shareholder; the money remains where it was, that is to say, employed in the business. In the face of these observations the reasoning given by the Gujrat High Court can not be upheld.”
4. Observations of Andhra Pradesh High Court completely contrary to the observations of Supreme Court
In CIT Vs. GIC the Supreme Court has observed (in para 19) that “the Andhra Pradesh High Court has in Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd Vs. CIT (supra) taken the view that the expenditure incurred on the issue of bonus shares was capital in nature because the issue of bonus shares led to an increase in the company’s capital base.” The Supreme Court further observed (in para 20) “the above observations and conclusions are erroneous as they run contrary to the observation made by this Court in Dalmia Investment Co Ltd (supra). The capital base of the company prior to or after the issuance of bonus shares remains unchanged.”
The Supreme Court observed in concluding para (para 24) “in our considered opinion, the view taken by the Bombay and Calcutta High Courts is correct to the effect that the expenditure on issuance of bonus shares is revenue expenditure. The contrary judgments of Gujrat and Andhra Pradesh High Courts are erroneous and do not lay down the correct law.”
5. Law declared by Supreme Court to be binding on all Courts
Article 141 of the Constitution provides that “the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all Courts within the
5.1 Binding force of Supreme Court Decisions
All courts in
‘Law declared’ – In case of conflict between decisions of the Supreme Court itself, it is the latest pronouncement which will be binding upon the inferior courts; unless the earlier was of a larger bench. If the later decision is that of a larger bench the previous decision will be deemed to have been overruled and completely wiped out. This rule is followed by the Supreme Court itself.
5.2 Duty of High Court and inferior Courts
(i) When some principle has been laid down by the Supreme Court or some practice deprecated, it should be the duty of the High Court or a subordinate court to follow the decision of the Supreme Court, even though it may not have the approval of the judge of the inferior court, where the Supreme Court decision is cited.
(ii) A judgment of the High Court which refuses to follow the directions of the Supreme Court, or seeks to revive a decision of the High Court which had been set aside by the Supreme Court, is a nullity.
(iii) If a direction of the Supreme Court is clear, a party cannot approach the court for a clarification for assisting the High Court, which would be tantamount to nullifying the Supreme Court order or notification.
(iv) The binding force of a Supreme Court decision can not be assailed on the ground that it did not consider a particular argument, provided the point to which the argument relates was actually decided therein.
6. Gujrat High Court and Andhra Pradesh High Court were bound to follow the judgment of Supreme Court
The effect of issuance of bonus share had been explained by the Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Dalmia Investment Co Ltd (supra) in 1964. Further, the Supreme Court had laid down the test for determining whether a particular expenditure is revenue or capital expenditure in the case of Empire Jute Co. Ltd Vs. CIT (supra) in 1980. However, the Gujrat High Court in Ahmedabad Mfg. & Calico Pvt Ltd Vs. CIT (supra) in 1986 and in other cases (refer CIT Vs. GIC) up to 1994 has taken a contrary view. Further, the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd Vs. CIT (supra) in 1988 and up to 1990 has also taken a contrary view. It is unfortunate that Gujrat High Court and Andhra Pradesh High Court have clearly violated the mandate of Article 141 of the Constitution.
6. State is a major litigant before the High Courts and the Supreme Court
According to a survey about 70% of the appeals before the High Courts and the Supreme Court are filed by the State, either Central or a State Govt. It appears that the appeals are filed as a matter of routine without examining the merits of each case, which create a heavy burden on the High Courts and the Supreme Court, as well as on public exchequer. There is a need for immediate introspection and to design a system of careful scrutiny before filing an appeal on behalf of the State. So that valuable time of the High Courts and the Supreme Court may be saved by avoiding unnecessary litigation.
8. Conclusion
The Ministry of Law should take initiative to bring into existence a system by which the judgment of the Supreme Court on a particular issue can be codified, which may be referred by the High Courts, inferior courts and others. This can be achieved by computerisation of Supreme Court judgments by the experts in the field of law. The High Courts and inferior courts need to be meticulous in following the judgment of Supreme Court on a particular point in issue before it. It would be advantageous to hold that a judicial discipline is the need of the hour and it is high time to evolve the concept of judicial accountability. (END)
Note: the views expressed are my personal and a view point only.
Author:
Narendra Sharma, Consultant (Legal)
E-mail: nkdewas@yahoo.co.in
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
Tags :Constitutional Law
Now that Chief Justice of India Altamas Kabir and the UPA government have finally decided to hold the conference of chief ministers and chief justices of high courts this weekend, there is hope that some long-pending issues in the country's judicial and justice delivery system will be resolved. Originally meant to be an annual affair, the conference was last held in August 2009. Rather than discussing the need for judicial reforms, which has been brought up so many times that one has lost count, the higher judiciary and the government would do well to use this year's conference to take stock of what has been achieved since the last conference. The law ministry is suggesting that the issue of an All India Judicial Service would be discussed at this meeting. But wasn't it discussed almost four years ago too? And what about making appointments to higher judiciary more transparent? Successive law ministers, including the current one, have announced plans to replace the collegium system with a more transparent one. But since this requires a constitutional amendment, the chances of this happening any time soon are remote, what with the government and opposition divided on the composition of the proposed National Judicial Appointments Commission. Both the judiciary and the government repeatedly talk of increasing the strength of the subordinate judiciary. CJI Kabir is reportedly aiming at increasing the number of judges manning subordinate courts from the current 18,871 to 30,000-plus in the next five years. Earlier this year, Union Law Minister Ashwani Kumar had also asked all state governments to increase the strength of the subordinate judiciary. But what about first filling all vacant posts, both in the high courts and the lower courts? At last count, out of the sanctioned strength of 906 high court judges, a whopping 292 posts were vacant, that is, over 30 per cent. The picture is no different when it comes to lower courts. According to data for December 31, 2010, out of the sanctioned 17,151 posts in states and Union Territories, 3,170 were vacant. At the last conference, the government and judiciary had also agreed to set up more morning/evening courts and also to reduce the states' financial burden to set up more gram nyayalayas. As of December 17, 2012, 168 gram nyayalayas were notified, while only 151 were operationalised. Five thousand gram nyayalayas had been planned in the 2008 Gram Nyayalayas Act. About a year ago, the Supreme Court cleared the National Court Management System (NCMS), aimed at setting up a real-time system to keep a check on pendency and make the judicial system free of cases more than five years old, which would mean 26 per cent of all pending cases. Here is what the introduction to the action plan for the NCMS said: "It is manifest that many of the important recommendations made by the Law Commissions (on judicial reforms), from time to time, have not even been properly discussed, leave aside their implementation by the Government." The Supreme Court also acknowledged that many recommendations of the Law Commissions do not need to pass through legislative or executive channels and can be implemented straightaway by the judiciary. It also noted the urgent need to shorten the average life cycle of all cases, "not only time spent within each court, but also total time in the judicial system as a whole". It spoke of bringing the average down to "no more than about one year in each court". None of these issues has been dealt with effectively. Jurists have said that courts should not grant adjournments at the drop of a hat, on flimsy excuses such as the lawyer who was supposed to appear in the matter had too much work on his hands. But this suggestion has not been taken seriously. Despite the infusion of hundreds of crores, the use of technology to track pendency remains minimal. Last year, the CJI had cleared the setting up of a National Framework of Court Excellence (NFCE), designed to put in place "measurable performance standards for Indian courts" by "addressing issues of quality, responsiveness and timeliness". There has been little progress on this front. While it is a fact that India has one of the lowest judge-to-population ratios in the world, this statistic can no longer be an argument for the growing pendency of cases and the failure of our judicial system to deliver timely justice. Also, while pitching for fast-track courts for certain kinds of offences, our policy-makers and judges should keep in mind what former CJI J S Verma has said on the subject: "Why fast-track courts for some offences? Shouldn't all litigants be assured fast-track decisions by the courts?" maneesh.chhibber@expressindia.com