COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,TRIVANDRUM vs. SRI.B.MOHANACHANDRAN NAIR,MANGAD,KOLLAM
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court declined to entertain the appeal. The Court reasoned that the ITAT had merely followed the dicta laid down by the jurisdictional High Court. While the Revenue claimed the ITAT's order was contrary to the Supreme Court's decision in IPCA Laboratory Ltd., the High Court held that if the Revenue believed the ITAT's order was contrary to the apex Court's ruling, they should first make an appropriate application before the ITAT for review or rectification of its order. The appeal was disposed of with liberty granted to the Revenue to make such an application to the ITAT.
What were the facts?
The Revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax, Thiruvananthapuram, is appealing an order dated May 11, 2005, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Cochin Bench, in ITA No. 438/2002, concerning assessment year 1995-96. The appeal was filed with the High Court of Kerala. The Revenue's appeal was delayed due to non-payment of court fees. The High Court noted that the ITAT had followed the jurisdictional High Court's dicta. However, the Revenue brought to the court's attention a Supreme Court decision in IPCA Laboratory Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax [(2004) 266 ITR 521] which they believed contradicted the ITAT's reasoning.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the High Court should entertain the Revenue's appeal when the ITAT has followed the jurisdictional High Court's dicta, and the appeal is filed after a significant delay due to non-payment of court fees. 2. Whether the Revenue can directly appeal to the High Court based on a subsequent Supreme Court decision that allegedly contradicts the ITAT's order, or if they should first approach the ITAT for review or rectification. Assessee's contentions: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue argued that the ITAT's order was contrary to the law laid down by the apex Court in the case of IPCA Laboratory Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax [(2004) 266 ITR 521].
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu, C.J. The Revenue is before us in this appeal, being aggrieved by the orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, in I.T.A.No.438 of 2002, for the assessment year 1995-96. The order passed by the Tribunal is dated 11th May, 2005. 2. The Tribunal while deciding the issues raised by the Revenue before it, had answered those issues following the dicta laid down by the juri ictional High Court.
For the first time, after more than three years, the matter is coming up for admission before us. This was only because of the non- payment of the court fee by the Revenue. If for any reason, the appeal had come before us immediately after it was filed before this Court, our answer would have been to accept the reasoning of the Tribunal for the reason that the Tribunal had merely followed the dicta laid down by this Court.
Now it is brought to our notice by the learned counsel appearing for the Department that the view expressed by this Court is not sustained by the apex Court in the decision rendered in the case of I.T.A.No.52 of 2008 2 IPCA Laboratory Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax [(2004) 266 ITR 521]. In our opinion, if for any reason the Department is of the opinion that the reasoning and conclusion reached by the Tribunal is contrary to the law laid down by the apex Court in the case of IPCA Laboratory's case, the Revenue has to make an appropriate application before the Tribunal, either for review or rectification of its order.
In that view of the matter, we decline to entertain this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of. However, we grant liberty to the Revenue to make an appropriate application/review petition before the Tribunal for appropriate orders. Ordered accordingly.
(H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE
(A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE vns
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Prafulla Chandra Khatua, Mayurbhanj vs. The State Tax Officer Of CT And GST, MayurbhanjOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sidhivinayak Roadways, Sundergarh vs. Commissioner Of GST And Central Excise, Rourkela Commissionerate, RourkelaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Dillip Kumar Behera vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Mayurbhanj CircleOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Kalinga Paper Mart, Sundergarh vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Kabita Nayak vs. Chief Commissioner, CGST, Central Excise And Customs, KhurdaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
