M/S MALTEX MALSTERS LTD., NABHA ROAD, PUNJAB vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATIALA & ANR.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/782/2010HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01093752201016 September 2016Author: MR. JUSTICE M.M. AGGARWAL,MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the result of the present appeals would follow the result of ITA No. 581 of 2008. As ITA No. 581 of 2008 was allowed by the High Court in a separate order passed on the same day, the present four appeals (ITA Nos. 782 of 2010, 297 of 2011, 12 of 2012, and 276 of 2013) are also allowed for the same reasons. The operative direction is that the appeals are allowed. No specific issues were decided on merits for these appeals; the decision was based on the precedent of ITA No. 581 of 2008. No part of the judgment was left undecided.

What were the facts?

These are four Income Tax Appeals filed by M/s Maltex Malsters Ltd. (the appellant) against the Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala and another (the respondents). The appeals are for assessment years not specified in the judgment. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh is considering the appeals. The judgment states that the outcome of these appeals is contingent upon the decision in ITA No. 581 of 2008, also filed by M/s Maltex Malsters Ltd. against the same respondents. The High Court has already passed a separate order and judgment on the same day, allowing ITA No. 581 of 2008. Consequently, the present appeals are also being allowed for the same reasons.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeals filed by M/s Maltex Malsters Ltd. should be allowed, following the decision in ITA No. 581 of 2008. The appellant, M/s Maltex Malsters Ltd., contends that since the High Court has already allowed ITA No. 581 of 2008, which is the precedent for these appeals, the present appeals should also be allowed. The revenue, represented by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala, does not appear to have presented any arguments against this procedural alignment, as the judgment indicates agreement on the outcome being dictated by the earlier appeal. No specific provisions of the Income Tax Act are named in relation to the core dispute, as the decision hinges on the outcome of a previous appeal.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH INCOME TAX APPEAL No.782 of 2010 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 16.09.2016 M/s Maltex Malsters Ltd. …..Appellant versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala and another .....Respondents INCOME TAX APPEAL No.297 of 2011 (O&M) M/s Maltex Malsters Ltd. …..Appellant versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala and another .....Respondents INCOME TAX APPEAL No.12 of 2012 (O&M) M/s Maltex Malsters Ltd. …..Appellant versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala and another .....Respondents INCOME TAX APPEAL No.276 of 2013 (O&M) M/s Maltex Malsters Ltd. …..Appellant versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala and another .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.J. VAZIFDAR, CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL Present: Mr. Akshay Bhan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Abhishek Sanghi, Advocate for the appellant Mr. Zora Singh Klar, Advocate for the respondents .. Parkash Chand 2016.09.20 11:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

ITA-782-2010 S.J. VAZIFDAR, CHIEF JUSTICE: It is agreed that the result of these appeals follows the result in ITA No.581 of 2008 titled as M/s Maltex parkash* JUDGE Parkash Chand 2016.09.20 11:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →