THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI.K.RAJENDRANATHAN NAIR
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court declined to entertain the appeal. The court noted that if the Revenue believed the ITAT's order was contrary to the Supreme Court's decision in IPCA Laboratory Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, the appropriate course of action was to file a review or rectification application before the ITAT itself. The court reasoned that since the ITAT had merely followed the jurisdictional High Court's dicta, and the appeal was coming up for admission after a significant delay due to non-payment of court fees, it was not the appropriate forum to address the alleged conflict with the Supreme Court ruling at this stage. The Revenue was granted liberty to approach the ITAT for appropriate orders. No specific issue was left undecided; the appeal was disposed of on procedural grounds.
What were the facts?
The Revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax, Thiruvananthapuram, filed an appeal before the High Court of Kerala against an order dated April 26, 2005, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Cochin Bench, in ITA No. 114/Coch/2002 for the assessment year 1995-96. The appeal was listed for admission after approximately three years, primarily due to the Revenue's non-payment of court fees. The ITAT had decided the issues by following the dicta laid down by the jurisdictional High Court. The Revenue's counsel brought to the court's notice a Supreme Court decision in IPCA Laboratory Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax [(2004) 266 ITR 521] which, according to the Revenue, contradicted the High Court's view that the ITAT had followed.
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 Revenue later points to a Supreme Court decision that allegedly contradicts the High Court's view? (Question of law and procedure) The Revenue contended that the ITAT's order, though following the High Court's view, was contrary to the law laid down by the apex court in IPCA Laboratory Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax [(2004) 266 ITR 521]. Therefore, the Revenue argued that the matter should be considered in light of the Supreme Court's decision. The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the respondent, K. Rajendranath Nair.
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, Kochi, in I.T.A.No.114/Coch/2002, for the assessment year 1995-96. The order passed by the Tribunal is dated 26th April, 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, nearly about three years, the matter is coming up for admission before us. This was mainly 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 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 I.T.A.No.64 of 2008 2 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 vku/-
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S South INDIA Trading Company vs. Additional Commissioner Adjudication CGST Delhi North & Anr.Delhi · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Rishi Stonex vs. The State Of Assam And 5 OthersGauhati · 13 Oct 2026
- Gopal Datt vs. Vishal Kumar SharmaUttarakhand · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Do Nam Enterprise And Anr vs. The Union Of INDIA And 2 OrsGauhati · 13 Oct 2026
- M Sundaravel vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Central GST And Central ExciseMadras · 13 Oct 2026
