COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARNAL (HARYANA)versusM/S CARPET INDIA, PANIPAT (HARYANA)

1092                      [2018]REPORTS
                SUPREME COURT    7 S.C.R. 1092             [2018] 7 S.C.R.


 A      COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARNAL (HARYANA)
                                        v.
                 M/S CARPET INDIA, PANIPAT (HARYANA)
                         (Civil Appeal No. 4590 of 2018)
 B                               APRIL 27, 2018
         [R. K. AGRAWAL AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.]
              Income Tax Act, 1961 – ss.80HHC (1A) & (3A) a/w
       Explanation (baa) to s.80HHC and s.28(iiia) to (iiie) – Manner of
       computation of deduction under s.80HHC, in case of supporting
 C
       manufacturer selling goods to an Export House – Interpretation of
       – Assessee, supporting manufacturer, dealt in manufacture of
       carpets which it sold to an Export House, which, in turn, directly
       exported the goods manufactured by the assessee – Assessee claimed
       deduction of export incentives at par with the direct exporter
 D     u/s.80HHC since it received export incentives in the form of Duty
       Draw Back (DDB), Duty Entitlement Pass Book (DEPB) etc. –
       Assessing Officer partly disallowed the deduction – High Court
       relying on Baby Marine Exports case held that assessee is entitled
       to claim deduction at par with the direct exporter – Decision in
       Baby Marine Exports was subsequently followed in Sushil Kumar
 E
       Gupta case – Held: Decisions in the said two cases cannot be agreed
       upon – They require re-consideration by a larger Bench since the
       issue in question has large implication in terms of monetary benefits
       for both the parties – Matters be placed before Hon’ble the Chief
       Justice of India for appropriate orders.
 F
              Income Tax Act, 1961 – s.80HHC – Purpose of – Discussed.
             Directing the matters to be placed before Hon’ble the Chief
       Justice of India for appropriate orders, the Court
             HELD: 1.1 The very purpose of Section 80HHC of the
 G     Income Tax Act, 1961 is to promote the export business as well
       as in order to keep the domestic products competitive in the
       global market by allowing tax deduction on export profits. Since
       the inception of Section 80HHC of the IT Act, these benefits
       were available only to the direct exporter which later on extended
       to the supporting manufacturer who is selling goods or
 H
                                      1092
C.I.T. KARNAL (HARYANA) v. M/S CARPET INDIA, PANIPAT 1093
                    (HARYANA)

merchandise to an Export House/Trading House by inserting sub-         A
Section (1A) and (3A) in Section 80HHC of the IT Act. The
legislature divided Section 80HHC of the IT Act in two parts for
the purpose of deduction, namely, direct exporter and supporting
manufacturer. Direct exporter, being an Indian company or a
person (other than company) resident in India, who directly
                                                                       B
exports the goods to some other country whereas supporting
manufacturer, being an Indian company or a person (other than
company) resident in India, who instead of direct export, supply
the goods to the Export Houses who eventually export these
goods. However, clauses (ba) and (baa) of the Explanation to
Section 80HHC defines “total turnover” and what items are not          C
included therein and “profits of the business” to be reduced by
ninety percent of any sum referred to in clauses (iiia) to (iiie) of
Section 28 of the IT Act. Clauses (iiia) to (iiie) of Section 28
specifically refers to profits on sale of import license, cash
assistance received or receivable against exports, duty drawback
                                                                       D
against export (Customs & Central Excise Duty Drawback Rules),
any profit on the transfer of Duty Entitlement Pass Book (Duty
Remission Scheme) and any profit on the transfer of Duty Free
Replenishment Certificate. [Para 10] [1100-H; 1101-A-D]
      1.2 On perusal of various provisions of the IT Act, it is
clear that Section 80HHC of the IT Act provides for deduction in       E
respect of profits retained from export business and, in particular,
sub-Section (1A) and sub-Section (3A), provides for deduction in
the case of supporting manufacturer. The “total turnover” has to
be determined as per clause (ba) of the Explanation whereas
“Profits of the business” has to be determined as per clause (baa)     F
of the Explanation. Both these clauses provide for exclusion
and reduction of 90% of certain receipts mentioned therein
respectively. The computation of deduction in respect of
supporting manufacturer, is contemplated by Section 80HHC
(3A), whereas the effect to be given to such computed deduction
is contemplated under Section 80HHC (1A) of the IT Act. In             G
other words, the machinery to compute the deduction is provided
in Section 80HHC (3A) of the IT Act and after computing such
deduction, such amount of deduction is required to be deducted
from the gross total income of the assessee in order to arrive at
                                                                       H
1094            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2018] 7 S.C.R.


 A     the taxable income/total income of the assessee, as contemplated
       by Section 80HHC (1A) of the IT Act. [Para 12] [1101-H; 1102-
       A-C]
              1.3 However, this Court is not in agreement with decisions
       in Baby Marine Exports and Sushil Kumar Gupta and as
 B     Explanation (baa) to Section 80HHC specifically reduces
       deduction of 90% of the amount referable to Section 28 (iiia) to
       (iiie) of the IT Act, these decisions require re-consideration by a
       larger Bench since this issue has larger implication in terms of
       monetary benefits for both the parties. The following substantial
       question of law of general importance arises for re-consideration
 C     by this Court:
             “Whether in the light of peculiar facts and circumstances
       of the instant case, supporting manufacturer who receives export
       incentives in the form of duty draw back (DDB), Duty Entitlement
       Pass Book (DEPB) etc. is entitled for deduction under Section
 D     80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961?” [Para 15] [1103-F-H]
             Commissioner of Income Tax, Thiruvantanpuram v.
             Baby Marine Exports (2007) 290 ITR 323 (SC) : [2007]
             4 SCR 628 ; Commissioner of Income Tax Karnal v.
             Sushil Kumar Gupta [Judgment dated September 12,
 E           2012 passed by Supreme Court in Civil Appeal
             No. 6437 of 2012 @ Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)
             No. 7615 of 2009 – held, require re-consideration.
                              Case Law Reference

 F       [2007] 4 SCR 628 held, require re-consideration Para 13
             CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4590
       of 2018.
             From the Judgment and Order dated 13.05.2008 of the High Court
       of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in I. T. A. No. 544 of 2007
 G                                    WITH
             Civil Appeal Nos. 4601, 4602, 4591, 4597, 4599, 4592, 4593,
       4596, 4594, 4603, 4595 and 4598 of 2018.
             K. Radhakrishnan, Sr. Adv., Rupesh Kumar, Deepak Prakash,
 H     Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Advs. for the Appellant.
      C.I.T. KARNAL (HARYANA) v. M/S CARPET INDIA,                           1095
           PANIPAT (HARYANA) [R.K. AGRAWAL, J.]

     Avi Tandon, Rohit Sthalekar, T. Mahipal, Arvind Gupta, Ranjan           A
Kumar, M/s. Lex-peritia & Co., Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Ashwani Taneja,
Ms. Monika Ghai, Ms. S. Borah, Somil Agarwal, Ambhoj Kumar Sinha,
Anunav Kumar, Jagdish Kumar Chawla, Advs. for the Respondent.
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
      R. K. AGRAWAL, J. 1. Leave granted.                                    B

       2. The above batch of appeals is related to the interpretation of
the provisions contained in Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961
(in short ‘the IT Act’).
      3. SLP (C) 8368 of 2009                                                C
      (a) M/s. Carpet India (P) Ltd.-the assessee is a partnership firm
deriving income from the manufacturing and sale of carpets to M/s.
IKEA Trading (India) Ltd. (Export House) as supporting manufacturer.
       (b) The assessee filed a ‘Nil’ return for the Assessment Year
(AY) 2001-2002 on 30.10.2001, inter alia, stating the total sales            D
amounting to Rs. 6,49,83,432/- with total export incentives of
Rs. 68,82,801/- as Duty Draw Back (DDB) and claimed deduction under
Section 80HHC amounting to Rs. 1,57,68,742/- out of the total profits of
Rs. 1,97,10,927/- at par with the direct exporter.
      (c) On scrutiny, the Assessing Officer, vide order dated 25.02.2004,   E
allowed the deduction under Section 80HHC to the tune of
Rs. 1,08,96,505/- instead of 1,57,68,742/- as claimed by the assessee
while arriving at the total income of Rs. 57,18,040/-.
      (d) Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which was allowed vide order            F
dated 12.08.2004 while holding that the assessee is entitled to the
deduction of export incentives under Section 80HHC at par with the
exporter.
       (e) The Revenue went in appeal before the Income Tax Appellate
Tribunal (in short ‘the Tribunal’) as well as before the High Court but      G
the same got dismissed vide orders dated 23.02.2007 and 13.05.2008
respectively leaving it to take recourse of this Court by way of special
leave.


                                                                             H
1096             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2018] 7 S.C.R.


 A            (f) Since a common question of law has arisen in these appeals, it
       will be disposed of by this common order.
             4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
             Point(s) for consideration:-
 B            5. The short but important question of law that arises before this
       court is whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case,
       supporting manufacturer who receives export incentives in the form of
       duty draw back (DDB), Duty Entitlement Pass Book (DEPB) etc., is
       entitled for deduction under Section 80HHC of the IT Act at par with
       the direct exporter?
 C
             Rival contentions:-
               6. At the outset, learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that
       the assessee deals in the manufacturing of the carpets which it usually
       sells to various entities including M/s IKEA Trading (India) Ltd. (Export
 D     House/Trading House) which, in turn, further exports the goods
       manufactured by the assessee. While filing the return, the assessee
       claimed deduction at par with the direct exporter under Section 80HHC
       of the IT Act since it receives export incentives in the form of duty draw
       back (DDB) etc. It was further contended that in view of the fact that
       the assessee is working as a supporting manufacturer and also there is
 E     no direct export of the goods to the foreign constituents by the assessee
       firm, hence, it is not entitled to claim the deduction at par with the direct
       exporter. However, the High Court erroneously relied on the judgment
       of this Court, namely, Commissioner of Income Tax,
       Thiruvantanpuram vs. Baby Marine Exports (2007) 290 ITR 323
 F     (SC) and held that the assessee is entitled to claim deduction at par with
       the direct exporter which is not sustainable in the eyes of law since the
       issues and facts are distinguishable from the facts and the circumstances
       of the instant case.
              7. At this juncture, it was also pointed out that the High Court as
       well as the Tribunal erred in law while deciding the issue as they treated
 G
       the export incentive at par with the premium paid by the export houses
       or trading houses to supporting manufacturer and not appreciated the
       fact that the ratio of the facts and issues involved in the case of the
       assessee-firm are totally different from the case of Baby Marine

 H
      C.I.T. KARNAL (HARYANA) v. M/S CARPET INDIA,                             1097
           PANIPAT (HARYANA) [R.K. AGRAWAL, J.]

Exports (supra). It was pointed out that the said case dealt with the          A
issue of eligibility of export house premium for inclusion in the business
profit and the turnover of the assessee firm. Hence, in no circumstances,
it could be relied upon by the High Court.
       8. Per contra, the stand of leaned counsel for the assessee was
that the assessee is working as supporting manufacturer, exporting the         B
goods to the foreign constituents through export houses, therefore, it is
legitimately entitled for the deduction of export incentives in terms of the
Section 80HHC of the IT Act in a similar way to the benefits available
to the direct exporter. It was submitted that the High Court rightly relied
on the judgment of this court in Baby Marine Exports (supra). Hence,
this special leave to appeal deserves to be dismissed.                         C

      Discussion:-
       9. Before examining the matter, we deem it apposite to refer to
the relevant provisions of Section 80HHC of the IT Act:
      “80HHC. Deduction in respect of profits retained for export              D
      business:- (1) Where an assessee, being an Indian company or
      a person (other than a company) resident in India, is engaged in
      the business of export out of India of any goods or merchandise
      to which this section applies, there shall, in accordance with and
      subject to the provisions of this section, be allowed, in computing      E
      the total income of the assessee, a deduction to the extent of
      profits, referred to in sub-section (1B), derived by the assessee
      from the export of such goods or merchandise:
            Provided that if the assessee, being a holder of an Export
      House Certificate or a Trading House Certificate (hereinafter in         F
      this section referred to as an Export House or a Trading House,
      as the case may be), issues a certificate referred to in clause (b)
      of sub-section (4A), that in respect of the amount of export turnover
      specified therein, the deduction under this sub-section is to be
      allowed to a supporting manufacturer, then the amount of deduction
      in the case of the assessee shall be reduced by such amount which        G
      bears to the total profits derived by the assessee from the export
      of trading goods, the same proportion as the amount of export
      turnover specified in the said certificate bears to the total export
      turnover of the assessee in respect of such trading goods.
                                                                               H
1098      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2018] 7 S.C.R.


 A     (1A) Where the assessee, being a supporting manufacturer, has
       during the previous year, sold goods or merchandise to any Export
       House or Trading House in respect of which the Export House or
       Trading House has issued a certificate under the proviso to sub-
       section (1), there shall, in accordance with and subject to the
       provisions of this section, be allowed in computing the total income
 B
       of the assessee, a deduction to the extent of profits, referred to in
       sub-section (1B), derived by the assessee from the sale of goods
       or merchandise to the Export House or Trading House in respect
       of which the certificate has been issued by the Export House or
       Trading House.
 C     (1B) xxx
       (2) xxx
       (3) xxx
       (3A) For the purposes of sub-section (1A), profits derived by a
       supporting manufacturer from the sale of goods or merchandise
 D     shall be:-
       (a) in a case where the business carried on by the supporting
       manufacturer consists exclusively of sale of goods or merchandise
       to one or more Export Houses or Trading Houses, the profits of
       the business;
 E     (b) in a case where the business carried on by the supporting
       manufacturer does not consist exclusively of sale of goods or
       merchandise to one or more Export Houses or Trading Houses,
       the amount which bears to the profits of the business the same
       proportion as the turnover in respect of sale to the respective
 F     Export House or Trading House bears to the total turnover of the
       business carried on by the assessee.”
       (4) xxx
       (4A) xxx
       (4B) xxx
       (4C) xxx
 G
       Explanation:- For the purposes of this section:-
         (a)      “convertible foreign exchange” means foreign exchange
               which is for the time being treated by the Reserve Bank of
               India as convertible foreign exchange for the purposes of
 H
C.I.T. KARNAL (HARYANA) v. M/S CARPET INDIA,                            1099
     PANIPAT (HARYANA) [R.K. AGRAWAL, J.]

     the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (42 of 1999),            A
     and any rules made thereunder;
 (aa) “export out of India” shall not include any transaction by
     way of sale or otherwise, in a shop, emporium or any other
     establishment situate in India, not involving clearance at
     any customs station as defined in the Customs Act 1962             B
     (52 of 1962);
 (b) “export turnover” means the sale proceeds received in, or
      brought into India by the assessee in convertible foreign
      exchange in accordance with clause (a) of sub-section (2)
      of any goods or merchandise to which this section applies         C
      and which are exported out of India, but does not include
      freight or insurance attributable to the transport of the goods
      or merchandise beyond the customs station as defined in
      the Customs Act, 1962;
 (ba) “total turnover” shall not include freight or insurance           D
     attributable to the transport of the goods or merchandise
     beyond the customs station as defined in the Customs act,
     1962 (52 of 1962):
            Provided that in relation to any assessment year
     commencing on or after the 1st day of April, 1991, the             E
     expression “total turnover” shall have effect as if it also
     excluded any sum referred to in clauses (iiia),(iiib), (iiic),
     (iiid) and (iiie) of section 28.”
 (baa) “profits of the business” means the profits of the business
     as computed under the head “Profits and gains of business          F
     or profession” as reduced by –
      (1) ninety per cent. of any sum referred to in clauses (iiia),
          (iiib), (iiic), (iiid) and (iiie) of section 28 or of any
          receipts by way of brokerage, commission, interest,
          rent, charges or any other receipt of a similar nature
                                                                        G
          included in such profits; and
      (2) the profits of any branch, office, warehouse or any
          other establishment of the assessee situate outside
          India;
                                                                        H
1100            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                              [2018] 7 S.C.R.


 A             (c)      xxx
               (d)      xxx
               (e)      xxx
             Clauses (iiia), (iiib), (iiic), (iiid) and (iiie) of Section 28 of IT Act
 B           read as follows:
             “28. Profits and gains of business or profession:- The
             following income shall be chargeable to income-tax under the head
             “Profits and gains of business or profession:-
               (i)    xxx
 C
               (ii)   xxx
               (iii) xxx
               (iiia) profits on sale of a licence granted under the Imports
                    (Control) Order, 1955, made under the Imports and Exports
 D                  (Control) Act, 1947 (18 of 1947);
               (iiib) cash assistance (by whatever name called) received or
                    receivable by any person against exports under any scheme
                    of the Government of India;
               (iiic) any duty of customs or excise repaid or repayable as
 E                  drawback to any person against exports under the Customs
                    and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 1971;
               (iiid) any profit on the transfer of the Duty Entitlement Pass
                    Book Scheme, being the Duty Remission Scheme under
                    the export and import policy formulated and announced under
 F                  section 5 of the Foreign Trade (Development and
                    Regulation) Act, 1992 (22 of 1992);
               (iiie) any profit on the transfer of Duty Free Replenishment
                    Certificate being the Duty Remission Scheme under the
                    export and import policy formulated and announced under
 G                  section 5 of the Foreign Trade (Development and
                    Regulation) Act, 1992 (22 of 1992).”
             10. The very purpose of Section 80HHC of the IT Act is to
       promote the export business as well as in order to keep the domestic
       products competitive in the global market by allowing tax deduction on
 H
      C.I.T. KARNAL (HARYANA) v. M/S CARPET INDIA,                                  1101
           PANIPAT (HARYANA) [R.K. AGRAWAL, J.]

export profits. Since the inception of Section 80HHC of the IT Act,                 A
these benefits were available only to the direct exporter which later on
extended to the supporting manufacturer who is selling goods or
merchandise to an Export House/Trading House by inserting sub-Section
(1A) and (3A) in Section 80HHC of the IT Act. The legislature divided
Section 80HHC of the IT Act in two parts for the purpose of deduction,
                                                                                    B
namely, direct exporter and supporting manufacturer. Direct exporter,
being an Indian company or a person (other than company) resident in
India, who directly exports the goods to some other country whereas
supporting manufacturer, being an Indian company or a person (other
than company) resident in India, who instead of direct export, supply the
goods to the Export Houses who eventually export these goods. However,              C
clauses (ba) and (baa) of the Explanation to Section 80HHC defines
“total turnover” and what items are not included therein and “profits of
the business” to be reduced by ninety percent of any sum referred to in
clauses (iiia) to (iiie) of Section 28 of the IT Act. Clauses (iiia) to (iiie) of
Section 28 specifically refers to profits on sale of import license, cash
                                                                                    D
assistance received or receivable against exports, duty drawback against
export (Customs & Central Excise Duty Drawback Rules), any profit
on the transfer of Duty Entitlement Pass Book (Duty Remission Scheme)
and any profit on the transfer of Duty Free Replenishment Certificate.
       11. It is well known fact that there can be diverse sources of
income. These sources of income are clubbed together in order to find               E
out the gross total income on which tax can be levied. However, the IT
Act provides for allowing of certain deductions from the gross total
income of the assessee. Broadly speaking, deductions reduce the taxable
income. In the case at hand, it is evident that the total income of the
assessee for the concerned Assessment Year was Rs 1,97,10,927/- out                 F
of which it claimed deduction to the tune of Rs. 1,57,68,742/- under
Section 80HHC of the IT Act which was partly disallowed by the
Assessing Officer and deduction was allowed only to the tune of
Rs. 1,08,96,505/-. However, the assessee claimed the deduction at par
with the direct exporter under Section 80HHC of the IT Act which has
been eventually upheld by the High Court.                                           G

      12. In the instant case, the whole issue revolves around the manner
of computation of deduction under section 80HHC of the IT Act, in the
case of supporting manufacturer. On perusal of various provisions of

                                                                                    H
1102             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2018] 7 S.C.R.


 A     the IT Act, it is clear that Section 80HHC of the IT Act provides for
       deduction in respect of profits retained from export business and, in
       particular, sub-Section (1A) and sub-Section (3A), provides for deduction
       in the case of supporting manufacturer. The “total turnover” has to be
       determined as per clause (ba) of the Explanation whereas “Profits of
       the business” has to be determined as per clause (baa) of the Explanation.
 B
       Both these clauses provide for exclusion and reduction of 90% of certain
       receipts mentioned therein respectively. The computation of deduction
       in respect of supporting manufacturer, is contemplated by Section 80HHC
       (3A), whereas the effect to be given to such computed deduction is
       contemplated under Section 80HHC (1A) of the IT Act. In other words,
 C     the machinery to compute the deduction is provided in Section 80HHC
       (3A) of the IT Act and after computing such deduction, such amount of
       deduction is required to be deducted from the gross total income of the
       assessee in order to arrive at the taxable income/total income of the
       assessee, as contemplated by Section 80HHC (1A) of the IT Act.
 D            13. In Baby Marine Exports (supra), the question of law involved
       was “whether the export house premium received by the assessee is
       includible in the “profits of the business” of the assessee while
       computing the deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax
       Act, 1961?”. The said case mainly dealt with the issue related with the
       eligibility of export house premium for inclusion in the business profit for
 E     the purpose of deduction under Section 80HHC of the IT Act. Whereas
       in the instant case, the main point of consideration is whether the
       assessee-firm, being a supporting manufacturer, is to be treated at par
       with the direct exporter for the purpose of deduction of export incentives
       under Section 80HHC of the IT Act, after having regards to the peculiar
 F     facts of the instant case.
             14. While deciding the issue in Baby Marine Exports (supra), a
       two Judge Bench of this Court held as under:
             “39. On plain construction of Section 80HHC(1-A), the respondent
             is clearly entitled to claim deduction of the premium amount
 G           received from the export house in computing the total income.
             The export house premium can be included in the business profit
             because it is an integral part of business operation of the respondent
             which consists of sale of goods by the respondent to the export
             house.”
 H
      C.I.T. KARNAL (HARYANA) v. M/S CARPET INDIA,                             1103
           PANIPAT (HARYANA) [R.K. AGRAWAL, J.]

      The aforesaid decision has been followed by another Bench of             A
two Judges of this Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 7615 of
2009, Civil Appeal No. 6437 of 2012 and Others, Commissioner of
Income Tax Karnal vs. Sushil Kumar Gupta decided on September
12, 2012. The question considered in the aforesaid case is reproduced
below:
                                                                               B
      “3. In these civil appeals the common question which arises for
      determination is as follows:
         “Whether 90% of export benefits disclaimed in favour of a
         supporting manufacturer (assessee herein) have to be reduced
         in terms of Explanation (baa) of Section 80HHC of the Income          C
         Tax Act, 1961, while computing deduction admissible to such
         supporting manufacturer under Section 80HHC(3A) of the
         Act?”
      4. This question has been answered in favour of the assessee and
      against the Department in the case of CIT v. Baby Marine Exports         D
      [2007] 290 ITR 323/160 Taxman 160.
      5. The civil appeals filed by the Department are, accordingly,
      dismissed.”
       Broadly speaking, we are of the view that both these cases are
not identical and cannot be related with the deduction of export incentives    E
by the supporting manufacturer under Section 80HHC of the IT Act.
      15. However, we are not in the agreement with these decisions
and as Explanation (baa) of Section 80HHC specifically reduces
deduction of 90% of the amount referable to Section 28 (iiia) to (iiie) of
the IT Act, hence, we are of the view that these decisions require re-         F
consideration by a larger Bench since this issue has larger implication in
terms of monetary benefits for both the parties. After giving our thoughtful
consideration, the following substantial question of law of general
importance arises for re-consideration by this Court:
      “Whether in the light of peculiar facts and circumstances                G
      of the instant case, supporting manufacturer who receives
      export incentives in the form of duty draw back (DDB),
      Duty Entitlement Pass Book (DEPB) etc. is entitled for
      deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act,
      1961?”
                                                                               H
1104            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                             [2018] 7 S.C.R.


 A           16. Accordingly, we refer this batch of appeals to the larger Bench.
       Let the matter be placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India for
       appropriate orders.


       Divya Pandey                                 Matters to be placed before the
 B                                                  Hon’ble CJI for appropriate orders.




 C




 D




 E




 F




 G




 H