ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
In order
for the income of a charitable or religious institution to be eligible for
exemption u/s 11 of the Income-tax Act, the institution has to be registered
with the Commissioner of Income Tax u/s 12A read with section 12AA. For this
purpose, the institution has to file an application for registration u/s
12A(1)(aa) and the Commissioner on receipt of the application is required to
then follow the procedure laid down in section 12AA by passing an appropriate
order. Section 12AA(2) provides that every such order of the Commissioner
granting or refusing registration has to be passed before the expiry of six months
from the end of the month in which the application was received by him.
But often
it is seen that the Commissioner fails to act on the application within the
prescribed time, leaving the institution without registration. An issue arises
in such cases before the Courts about the status of the institution where the
Commissioner does not pass any order u/s 12AA within the time limit. Is the
institution to be treated as unregistered, which it is, or is it to be deemed
to be registered on failure of the Commissioner to act within the prescribed
time? While the Kerala and the Rajasthan High Courts, following an earlier
decision of the Allahabad High Court upheld on an appeal decided by the Supreme
Court, have held that in such a situation the registration u/s 12AA is deemed
to have been granted on the expiry of the period of six months, the Gujarat
High Court, following a subsequent Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High
Court, has held that the expiry of the period of six months does not result in
a deemed registration of the institution. In deciding the issue, the Gujarat
High Court held that the Supreme Court in the above referred appeal had left
the issue of deemed registration open while the other High Courts followed the
decision of the Apex Court on the understanding that it had held that the
institution was deemed to be registered once the time for rejecting the
application and refusing the registration was over. The added controversy,
therefore, moves in a narrow compass whereunder it is to be examined whether
the Supreme Court really adjudicated the issue as understood by the Kerala and
Rajasthan High Courts or whether the Court had kept the same open as held by
the Gujarat High Court.
TWO INTRICATELY LINKED CASES
The issue
had first come up before the Allahabad High Court in the case of Society for the Promotion of Education, Adventure Sport &
Conservation of Environment vs. CIT 372 ITR 222 and a
little later before the Full Bench of the same High Court in the case of CIT vs. Muzafar Nagar Development Authority 372 ITR 209.
Both these cases are intricately linked and therefore it is thought fit to
consider them at one place.
In the
Society’s case, the assessee was running a school. Till A.Y. 1998-99 it was
claiming exemption u/s 10(22). It had, therefore, not registered itself u/s 12A
to claim exemption u/s 11. Since section 10(22) was omitted by the Finance Act,
1998, the Society applied for registration u/s 12A with retrospective effect,
since the inception of the Society. But because the application was not made
within one year from the date of its establishment as required by the law at
that point of time, the Society sought for condonation of delay in making an
application.
No
decision was taken by the Commissioner on the Society’s application within the
time of six months prescribed u/s 12AA(2) and, in fact, the decision was
pending even after almost five years. Therefore, the Society was treated by the
A.O. as unregistered and was not allowed exemption from tax and was assessed on
its income that resulted in large tax demands. The Society filed a writ
petition before the Allahabad High Court seeking relief, including on the
ground that it was deemed to be registered u/s 12AA and was eligible for
exemption u/s 11.
The
Allahabad High Court observed that what was to be examined in the petition was
the consequence of such a long delay on the part of the Commissioner in not
deciding the Society’s application for registration. It noted that admittedly,
after the statutory limitation, the Commissioner would become functus officio, and could not thereafter pass
any order either allowing or rejecting the registration; it was obvious that
the application could not be allowed to be treated as perpetually undecided,
and under the circumstances, the key question was whether, upon lapse of the
six-month period without any decision, the application for registration should
be treated as rejected or to be treated as allowed.
It was
vehemently argued on behalf of the Society before the High Court that
registration shall be deemed to have been granted after the expiry of the
period prescribed u/s 12AA(2) if no decision had been taken on the application
for registration. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Bangalore bench of
the Tribunal in the case of Karnataka Golf
Association vs. DIT 91 ITD 1, where such a view had
been taken. Reliance was also placed on the decisions of the Allahabad High
Court in the cases of Jan Daood & Co. vs. ITO
113 ITR 772 and CIT
vs. Rohit Organics (P) Ltd. 281 ITR 194, both of
which laid down that when an application for extension of time was moved and
was not decided, it would be deemed to have been allowed. Further reliance was
placed on the decisions of the Allahabad High Court in the case of K.N. Agarwal vs. CIT 189 ITR 769 and of
the Bombay High Court in the case of Bank
of Baroda vs. H.C. Shrivastava 256 ITR 385 for the
proposition that the discipline of quasi-judicial functioning
demanded that the decision of the Tribunal or the High Court must be followed
by all Departmental authorities because not following the same could lead to a
chaotic situation.
The
Society further argued that the absence of any order of the Commissioner should
be taken to mean that he has not found any reason for refusing registration,
notice of which could have been given to the Society by way of an opportunity
of hearing. It was also argued that latches and lapses on the part of the
Department could not be to its own advantage by treating the application for
registration as rejected.
On behalf
of the Revenue reliance was placed on a decision of the Supreme Court in the
case of Chet Ram Vashisht vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, 1981 SC 653.
In that case, the Supreme Court, while examining the effect of the failure on
the part of the Delhi Municipal Corporation to decide an application u/s 313(3)
of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 for sanctioning a layout plan
within the specified period, had held that non-consideration of the application
would not amount to a deemed sanction.
The
Allahabad High Court, in the context of the Chet
Ram decision (Supra),
observed that the Supreme Court decision dealt with a different statute. It
further noted that one of the important aspects pointed out by the Supreme
Court for taking the view was the purpose of the provision requiring sanction
to layout plans. There was an element of public interest involved, namely, to
prevent unplanned and haphazard development of construction to the detriment of
the public. Besides, sanction or deemed sanction to a layout plan would entail
constructions being carried out, thereby creating an irreversible situation.
According to the Allahabad High Court, in the case before it there was no such
public element or public interest. Taking a view that non-consideration of the
registration application within the stipulated time would result in a deemed
registration might, at the worst, cause loss of some revenue or income tax
payable by that particular assessee, similar to a situation where an assessment
or reassessment was not completed within the prescribed limitation and the
inaction of the authorities resulted in deemed acceptance of the returned
income.
On the
other hand, according to the Allahabad High Court, taking the contrary view and
holding that not taking a decision within the time fixed by the law was of no
consequence, would leave the assessee totally at the mercy of the income tax
authorities, inasmuch as the assessee had not been provided any remedy under
the Act against such non-decision. Besides, according to the Court, their view
did not create any irreversible situation because the Commissioner had the
power to cancel registration u/s 12AA(3) if he was satisfied that the objects
of such trust were not genuine or the activities were not being carried out in
accordance with its objects. The only adverse consequence likely to flow from
the Court’s view would be that the cancellation would operate only
prospectively, resulting in some loss of revenue from the date of expiry of the
limitation u/s 12AA(3) till the date of cancellation of the registration. In
the view of the Allahabad High Court, the purposive construction adopted by the
Court furthered the object and purpose of the statutory provisions.
By far the
better interpretation according to the Court was to hold that the effect of
non-consideration of the registration application within the stipulated time
was a deemed grant of registration. It accordingly held that the institution
was a registered one and was eligible for the benefit of exemption u/s 11.
The
Income-tax Department challenged the decision of the Allahabad High Court
before the Supreme Court and in a decision reported as CIT vs. Society for the Promotion of Education, Adventure Sports
& Conservation of Environment, 382 ITR 6, the
Supreme Court, confirming the deemed registration, inter
alia addressed the apprehension raised on behalf of the Revenue by
holding that the deemed registration would, however, operate only after six
months from the date of the application, stating that this was the only logical
sense in which the judgment could be understood. In other words, the deemed
registration would not operate from the date of application or before the date
of application, but would operate on and from the date of expiry of six months
from the date of application. The Supreme Court disposed of the appeal by
noting that all other questions of law were kept open. It is not possible to
gather what those other questions of law were before the Court in the appeal as
the order did not record such questions. It is best to believe that the
observations of the Court were for the limited purpose of restricting the
decision to the issue expressly decided by it, which was to confirm the deemed
registration as was held by the Allahabad High Court and, inter alia, clarify that what the Allahabad
High Court meant was that the registration was to be effective from the date of
expiry of six months from the date of application.
The above ratio of the Allahabad High Court’s
decision in the case of the Society for the
Promotion of Education, Adventure Sport & Conservation of Environment vs.
CIT 372 ITR 222 was doubted by another Division
Bench in the case of CIT vs. Muzafar Nagar
Development Authority and the Bench referred the case
before it to a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court reported in CIT vs. Muzafar Nagar Development Authority 372 ITR 209.
The doubts expressed by the Division Bench were as follows:
1. There was nothing in section 12AA(2) which
provided for a deemed grant of registration if the application was not decided
within six months;
2. In the absence of a statutory provision
stipulating that the consequence of non-consideration would be a deemed grant
of permission, the Court could not hold that the application would be deemed to
be granted after the expiry of the period; and
3. The Legislature had not contemplated that the
authority would not be entitled to pass an order beyond the period of six
months.
4. The decision of the Court in the case of the Society for the Promotion of Education, Adventure Sport &
Conservation of Environment (Supra) did not
lay down a good law.
On behalf
of the assessee, it was argued before the Full Bench of the Allahabad High
Court that the intention of the Legislature was that the decision of the
Commissioner within the period of six months was mandatory and must be strictly
observed. The Legislature had used both expressions ‘may’ and ‘shall’ in
section 12AA(1), which was indicative of the fact that the expression ‘shall’
was regarded as mandatory wherever it had been used. Therefore, the period
prescribed in section 12AA(2) must be regarded as mandatory. If it was not
treated as mandatory, the assessee would be subjected to great prejudice by an
inordinate delay on the part of the Commissioner in disposing of his
application and the period, which had been prescribed otherwise, would be
rendered redundant.
It was
submitted on behalf of the Revenue that the period of six months was clearly
directory and the Legislature had not provided any consequence, such as a
deeming fiction that the application would be treated as being granted if it
was not disposed of within six months. Even if this was regarded as a casus omissis,
it was a well-settled principle of law that the Court had no jurisdiction to supplant
it and it must adopt a plain and literal meaning of the statute.
The Full
Bench of the Allahabad High Court examined the provisions of sections 12A and
12AA. It noted that the Legislature had not imposed a stipulation to the effect
that after the expiry of the period of six months the Commissioner would be
rendered functus officio or that he would be disabled
from exercising his powers. It had also not made any provision to the effect
that the application for registration should be deemed to have been granted if
it was not disposed of within a period of six months with an order either
allowing registration or refusing to grant it. According to the Full Bench,
providing that the application should be disposed of within a period of six
months was distinct from stipulating the consequence of a failure to do so.
The Court
observed that laying down the consequence that the application would be deemed
to be granted upon the expiry of six months could only be by way of reading a
legislative fiction or a deeming definition into the law which the Court, in
its interpretive capacity, could not create. That would amount to rewriting the
law and introduction of a provision which, advisedly, the Legislature had not
adopted. The Full Bench also held that a legislative provision could not be
rewritten by referring to the notes on clauses which, at the highest, would
constitute background material to amplify the meaning and purport of a
legislative provision.
The Full
Bench of the Allahabad High Court placed reliance on two decisions of the
Madras High Court in the cases of CIT
vs. Sheela Christian Charitable Trust 354 ITR 478
and CIT vs. Karimangalam Omriya Pangal Semipur Amaipur Ltd. 354 ITR
483 where it had held that failure to pass an order on an application
u/s 12AA within the stipulated period of six months would not automatically
result in granting registration to the trust.
According
to the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court, the assessee was not without a
remedy on expiry of the period of six months, as this could be remedied by
recourse to the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Therefore,
the Court held that the judgment of the Division Bench in Society for the Promotion of Education (Supra)
did not lay down the correct position of law and that non-disposal of an
application for registration within the period of six months would not result
in a deemed grant of registration.
THE TBI EDUCATION TRUST CASE
The issue
came up again before the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs. TBI Education Trust 257 Taxman 355.
In this
case the assessee trust was constituted on 27th May, 2002 and filed
an application for registration u/s 12A on 10th October, 2006. The
Commissioner called for a report from the Income-tax Officer (ITO) on 12th
January, 2007 and this report was submitted only on 24th July, 2007.
Vide this report, the ITO recommended
registration u/s 12AA(2). However, the Joint Commissioner of Income-tax sent an
adverse report dated 31st July, 2007 to the Commissioner. There were
some adjournments later, and finally the Commissioner passed an order dated 29th
November, 2007 rejecting the application for registration.
The
Tribunal allowed the assessee’s appeal, relying on the decision of the Special
Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Bhagwad
Swarup Shri Shri Devraha Baba Memorial Shri Hari Parmarth Dham Trust vs. CIT
111 ITD 175 (Del.)(SB), holding that since the
application was not disposed of within the period of six months, registration
would be deemed to have been granted.
In the appeal filed by the Commissioner against the Tribunal order
before the Kerala High Court, on behalf of the Revenue, attention of the Court
was drawn to the detailed consideration by the Commissioner of the assessee not
being a charitable trust, especially with reference to the clause in the trust
deed which enabled collection of free deposits, contributions, etc., from
students and their parents. It was argued that there was a specific finding
that though the trust was essentially for setting up of an educational institution,
there was no charity involved. There was also considerable delay in filing the
application for registration by the assessee, and sufficient reasons were not
stated for condoning such delay.
It was
further argued that though a period of six months was provided under the
statute, there was no deeming provision as such and under such circumstances
there could not be a deemed registration u/s 12AA. Reliance was also placed by
the Revenue on the decision of the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in
the Muzafar Nagar Development Authority case (Supra), for the proposition that there
could be no deemed registration. It was argued that there was no declaration of
law in the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Society for the Promotion of Education (Supra),
as it was only a concession made by the counsel appearing for the Department.
It was urged that the High Court should be concerned with the interpretation of
the provision to advance the course of law and not a concession by a counsel before
the Supreme Court in a solitary instance.
On behalf
of the assessee, it was submitted that the same Commissioner who had filed the
appeal before the Court had given effect to the order of the Tribunal, and
therefore the appeal was infructuous. Reliance was also placed on the decision
of the special bench of the Tribunal in the case of Bhagwad Swarup Shri Shri Devraha Baba Memorial Shri Hari Parmarth
Dham Trust (Supra) which held the limitation to be
a mandatory provision, failure to comply with which would result in deemed
registration. Attention of the Court was drawn to the CBDT Instruction No.
16/2015 (F No 197/38/2015-ITA-1) dated 6th November, 2015 which
mandated that the application should be considered and either allowed or
rejected within the period of six months as provided under the section.
Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Society for the Promotion of Education (Supra).
The Kerala
High Court initially observed that the Full Bench decision of the Allahabad
High Court had a persuasive power and they were inclined to follow the
decision, holding that without a specific deeming provision there could be no
grant of deemed registration u/s 12AA. According to the Kerala High Court,
there could be no fiction created by mere inference in the absence of a specific
exclusion deeming something to be other than what it actually was. The Kerala
High Court therefore observed that the fact assumed significance as to the view
of the Department insofar as the mandatory provision of consideration of
application and an order being issued within a period of six months.
Further,
the Kerala High Court noticed that there was unreasonable delay in complying
with the mandatory provision u/s 12AA(2). It also took note of the CBDT
Instruction Number 16/2015 (F No 197/38/2015-ITA-1) dated 6th
November, 2015 where the CBDT had noted that the time limit of six months was
not being observed in some cases by the Commissioner. Instructions were
therefore issued that the time limit of six months was to be strictly followed
by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions) while passing orders u/s 12AA
and the Chief Commissioner (Exemptions) was instructed to monitor adherence to
the prescribed time limit and initiate suitable administrative action in case
any laxity in such adherence was noticed.
The Kerala
High Court observed that the CBDT had thought it fit, obviously from experience
of dealing with delayed applications, that the mandatory provision had to be
complied with in letter and spirit. These directions were binding on the officers
of the Department and were a reiteration of the statutorily prescribed mandate.
According to the Kerala High Court, the CBDT instruction gave a clear picture
of how the CBDT expected the officers to treat the mandatory provision as being
scrupulously relevant and significant.
The Kerala
High Court then considered the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Society for the Promotion of Education (Supra).
It stated that it was not convinced with the contention of the Revenue that
there was any concession made by the Additional Solicitor-General who appeared
in the matter for the Income-tax Department. It noted that the appeal before
the Supreme Court arose from the judgment of the Allahabad High Court. When the
matter was considered by the Supreme Court, the Full Bench decision of the
Allahabad High Court had already been passed and the said decision had not been
placed before the Supreme Court. According to the Kerala High Court, rather
than a concession, the Additional Solicitor-General specifically informed the
Supreme Court that the only apprehension of the Department was regarding the
date on which the deemed registration would be effected; whether it was on the
date of application or on the expiry of six months.
The Civil
Appeal before the Supreme Court was disposed of expressing the apprehension to
be unfounded, but all the same, clarifying that the registration of the
application u/s 12AA would only take effect from the date of expiry of six
months from the date of application. Considering the effect of disposal of a
Civil Appeal as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Kunhayammed vs. State of Kerala 245 ITR 360,
the Kerala High Court was of the view that the judgment of the High Court
merged in the judgment of the Supreme Court, since the Supreme Court approved
the judgment of the Allahabad High Court allowing deemed registration u/s 12AA,
though applicable only from the date of expiry of the six-month period as
mandated in section 12AA(2). According to the Kerala High Court, since the
verdict delivered by the Allahabad High Court regarding deemed registration u/s
12AA for reason of non-consideration of the application within a period of six
months from the date of filing was not differed from by the Supreme Court in
the Civil Appeal, the declaration by the High Court assumed the authority of a
precedent by the Supreme Court on the principles of the doctrine of merger.
Therefore,
the Kerala High Court rejected the appeal of the Department, following the
decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Society
for the Promotion of Education (Supra) holding
that the failure of the Commissioner to deal with the application within the
prescribed time led to the deemed registration.
A similar
view was also taken by the Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sahitya Sadawart Samiti Jaipur 396 ITR 46.
ADDOR FOUNDATION CASE
The issue
again came up before the Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Addor Foundation 425 ITR 516.
In this
case, the assessee trust made an online application for registration u/s 12AA
on 23rd January, 2017. The Commissioner called for details of the
various activities actually carried out by the trust vide his letter dated 5th February,
2018. After considering the details submitted by the trust, the Commissioner rejected
the application for registration.
In the
appeal, the Tribunal noted the fact that while passing the order rejecting the
registration application, the Commissioner wrongly mentioned the date of
receipt of the application for registration as 23rd January, 2018,
instead of 23rd January, 2017. Placing reliance on the decision of
the Supreme Court in the case of Society
for the Promotion of Education (Supra), the
Tribunal held the registration as deemed to have been granted and allowed the
appeal of the assessee.
On behalf
of the Revenue it was submitted before the Gujarat High Court that the dictum of law as laid down by the
Supreme Court in the case of Society for the
Promotion of Education (Supra) was of no avail to the
assessee in the facts and circumstances of the case before the Gujarat High
Court. Though the issues were quite similar, the Supreme Court had decided the
issue in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue only on the basis of the
statement made by the Additional Solicitor-General, keeping all the questions
of law open. It was submitted that on a plain reading of the section it could
not be said that merely by the Commissioner not deciding the application within
the stipulated period of six months, deemed registration was to be granted.
On behalf
of the assessee, reliance was placed on the decisions of the Kerala High Court
in the case of TBI Education Trust (Supra)
and of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Sahitya
Sadawart Samiti Jaipur (Supra). It was argued that
although the Legislature had thought fit not to incorporate the word ‘deemed’
in section 12AA(2), yet, having regard to the language and the intention, it
could be said that a legal fiction had been created.
The Gujarat
High Court observed that the decision of the Division Bench of the Allahabad
High Court in the case of Society for the Promotion of
Education (Supra) was of no avail as the
correctness of that decision had been questioned before the Full Bench of the
Allahabad High Court in the case of Muzafar
Nagar Development Authority (Supra) to hold
that there was no automatic deemed registration on failure of the Commissioner
to deal with the application within the stipulated six months. The Gujarat High
Court was not inclined to accept the line of reasoning which had found favour
with the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Society for the Promotion of Education (Supra).
The
Gujarat High Court reproduced with approval extracts from the Full Bench
decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Muzafar Nagar Development Authority (Supra).
The Court analysed various decisions of the Supreme Court, which had examined
the issue whether a legal fiction had been created by use of the word ‘deemed’,
and observed that the principle discernible was that it was the bounden duty of
the Court to ascertain for what purpose the legal fiction had been created. It
was also the duty of the Court to imagine the fiction with all real
consequences and instances unless prohibited from doing so.
The
Gujarat High Court did not agree with the views expressed by the Kerala High
Court in the case of TBI Education Trust (Supra),
stating that the Supreme Court decision in the case of Society for the Promotion of Education (Supra)
did not lay down any principle of law and, on the contrary, kept the questions
of law open to be considered. The Gujarat High Court therefore expressed its
complete agreement with the view taken by the Full Bench of the Allahabad High
Court in the Muzafar Nagar Development Authority
case and held that deemed registration could not be granted on the ground that
the application filed for registration u/s 12AA was not decided within a period
of six months from the date of filing.
OBSERVATIONS
The issue
of deemed registration u/s 12AA in the event of failure to dispose of the
application within the specified time limit of six months has continued to
remain a highly debatable issue, even after the matter had reached the Supreme
Court. The additional and avoidable debate on the issue could have been avoided
had the attention of the Supreme Court been drawn by the Revenue to the fact
that the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in a later decision had
disapproved of the Division Bench judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which
was being considered in appeal by the Supreme Court. It could have also been
avoided had the Apex Court not stated in the order that the other issues were
kept open, where perhaps there were none that were involved in the appeal.
The issue
which arises now is whether the issue has been concluded by the Supreme Court
or whether it has been left open! While the Kerala High Court has taken the
view that the issue has been concluded, the Gujarat High Court is of the view
that the issue has not been decided by the Supreme Court.
If one
examines the decision of the Supreme Court, it clearly states that the short
issue was with regard to the deemed registration of an application u/s 12AA and
that the High Court had taken the view that once an application was made under
the said provision and in case the same was not responded to within six months,
it would be taken that the application was registered under the provision. This
was the only issue before the Supreme Court. Thereafter, the Supreme Court
clarified the apprehension raised by the Additional Solicitor-General, which
was addressed by the Supreme Court by holding that the deemed registration
would take effect from the expiry of the six-month period. Then, the Supreme
Court stated that subject to the clarification and leaving all other questions
of law open, the appeal was disposed of.
From this
it is evident that the appeal has been disposed of and not returned unanswered
or sent back to the lower court or appellate authorities. The appeal was on
only one ground – whether registration would be deemed to have taken place when
there was no disposal of the application within six months. The very fact that
the Supreme Court held that deemed registration would take effect on the expiry
of the six-month period clearly showed that it approved the concept of deemed
registration under such circumstances. Had the Supreme Court not approved the
concept of deemed registration, there was no question of clarifying that deemed
registration would take effect on the expiry of the six-month period.
Therefore, in our view, the Supreme Court approved of the decision of the
Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court.
The Kerala
High Court rightly appreciated this aspect of disposal of a Civil Appeal, which
implies approval of the judgment against which the appeal was preferred. In Kunhayammed vs. State of Kerala 245 ITR 360,
the Supreme Court considered the effect of disposal of a Civil Appeal as under:
‘If
leave to appeal is granted, the appellate jurisdiction of the Court stands
invoked; the gate for entry in appellate arena is opened. The petitioner is in
and the respondent may also be called upon to face him, though in an
appropriate case, in spite of having granted leave to appeal, the Court may
dismiss the appeal without noticing the respondent.
……..
The
doctrine of merger and the right of review are concepts which are closely
inter-linked. If the judgment of the High Court has come up to the Supreme
Court by way of a special leave, and special leave is granted and the appeal is
disposed of with or without reasons, by affirmance or otherwise, the judgment
of the High Court merges with that of the Supreme Court. In that event, it is
not permissible to move the High Court for review because the judgment of the
High Court has merged with the judgment of the Supreme Court.
……………………
Once a
special leave petition has been granted, the doors for the exercise of
appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court have been let open. The order
impugned before the Supreme Court becomes an order appealed against. Any order
passed thereafter would be an appellate order and would attract the
applicability of the doctrine of merger. It would not make a difference whether
the order is one of reversal or of modification or of dismissal affirming the
order appealed against. It would also not make any difference if the order is a
speaking or non-speaking one. Whenever the Supreme Court has felt inclined to
apply its mind to the merits of the order put in issue before it, though it may
be inclined to affirm the same, it is customary with the Supreme Court to grant
leave to appeal and thereafter dismiss the appeal itself (and not merely the
petition for special leave) though at times the orders granting leave to appeal
and dismissing the appeal are contained in the same order and at times the
orders are quite brief. Nevertheless, the order shows the exercise of appellate
jurisdiction and therein the merits of the order impugned having been subjected
to judicial scrutiny of the Supreme Court.
……..
Once
leave to appeal has been granted and appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court has been invoked, the order passed in appeal would attract the doctrine
of merger; the order may be of reversal, modification or merely affirmation’.
In case
one accepts that the Supreme Court in the case of Society for the Promotion of Education (Supra)
had comprehensively decided the main issue of deemed registration, then in that
case no debate survives on that issue at least. It is only where one holds that
the Court had left the issue open and had delivered the decision on the basis
of a concession by the Revenue that an issue arises. In our considered opinion,
the Court had clearly concluded, though it had not expressed it in so many written
words, that the non-decision by the Commissioner within the stipulated time led
to the deemed registration of the society. It seems that this fact of law and
the finding of the Court were rather accepted by the Revenue which had raised
an apprehension for the first time about the effective date of deemed
registration inasmuch as the order of the High Court was silent on the aspect
of the effective date. In meeting this apprehension of the Revenue, the Court
clarified that there was no case for such an apprehension as in the Court’s
view the effective date was the date of expiry of six months, and again in the
Court’s view such a view was in concurrence with the High Court’s view on such
date. The Kerala and Rajasthan High Courts are right in holding that the Court
had concluded the issue of registration in favour of the deemed registration
and had not left the said issue open and were right in interpreting the
decision of the Apex Court in a manner that confirmed the view expressed.
There was
no concession by the Revenue in the said case before the Apex Court as made out
by the Revenue. The fact is that an apprehension was independently raised for
the first time by the Revenue about the effective date of registration, which
was dismissed by the Court by holding that there was every reason to hold that
the High Court in the decision had held that the registration was effective
only from the date of expiry of six months from the date of the application and
not before the said date. It is this part which has been expressly recorded in
the judgment. What requires to be appreciated is that the clarification was
sought because once the main issue of deemed registration was settled by the
Court, there could not have been a clarification on an effective date of the deemed
registration had the issue of deemed registration been decided against the
assessee or was undecided and, as claimed, kept open.
The issue
in appeal before the Supreme Court was never about the effective date of
registration but was about the registration itself; it could not have been for
the date of registration for the simple reason that the Allahabad High Court
had nowhere in its decision dealt with the issue of the effective date of
registration.
In the
case of the Society for the Promotion of Education
(Supra), the Supreme Court had therefore modified the
order of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, which order had merged
in the order of the Supreme Court. Therefore, the subsequent order of the Full
Bench of the Allahabad High Court would no longer hold good since the Supreme
Court had taken a view contrary to that taken by the Full Bench of the
Allahabad High Court. This aspect does not seem to have been appreciated by the
Gujarat High Court.
The better
view, therefore, is the view taken by the Kerala and Rajasthan High Courts –
that failure to dispose of an application u/s 12A within the period of six
months results in a deemed registration u/s 12AA.
At the
same time note should be taken of the decisions of the Madras High Court in the
cases of CIT vs. Sheela Christian Charitable Trust 354 ITR 478
and CIT vs. Karimangalam Omriya Pangal Semipur Amaipur Ltd. 354 ITR
483. In the said cases the Court held that the non-decision by the
Commissioner within the prescribed time did not result in deemed registration
of the institution. These decisions should be held to be no longer good law in
view of the subsequent decision of the Apex Court.
The law is now amended with effect from 1st
April, 2021, with registration now required u/s 12AB. Section 12AB(3) also
requires disposal of the application within a period of three months, six
months or one month, depending upon the type of application, from the end of
the month in which the application is filed. The issue would therefore continue
to be relevant even under the amended law.
