THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. ALLIED CASHEW INDUSTRIES KOLLAM
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court declined to entertain the appeal. The Court observed 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 [(2004) 266 ITR 521], they should have first made an appropriate application before the ITAT itself, either for review or rectification of its order. The Court stated that if the appeal had come before them immediately after filing, they would have accepted the ITAT's reasoning as it followed the High Court's dicta. However, due to the subsequent development and the proper procedural recourse available, the appeal was disposed of without deciding on the merits. The Revenue was granted liberty to approach the ITAT for appropriate orders.
What were the facts?
The Revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax, Thiruvananthapuram, is appealing an order dated July 16, 2003, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Cochin Bench, in ITA No. 172/2000, for the assessment year 1997-98. The appeal was filed before the High Court of Kerala. The High Court noted that the ITAT had followed the jurisdictional High Court's dicta in its decision. The appeal came up for admission after a delay of nearly five years, attributed to the non-payment of court fees by the Revenue. The Revenue's counsel 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's order was based on the jurisdictional High Court's dicta, and the Revenue now claims this dicta is not sustained by the Supreme Court decision in IPCA Laboratory Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax [(2004) 266 ITR 521]? (Question of law and procedure) Assessee's Contention: Not recorded. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue argued that the ITAT's order, while following the High Court's view, 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.172 of 2000, for the assessment year 1997-98. The order passed by the Tribunal is dated 16th July, 2003. 2. The Tribunal while deciding the issues raised by the Revenue before it, had answered those issues following the dicta laid down by the jurisdictional High Court.
For the first time, nearly after five 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.45 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 →- Vinishma Technologies Private Limited vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- J.M.Swamy vs. Government Of INDIAKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Acc LTD. vs. Secy.Industries Deptt.Orissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Kumaran Transports (Tuticorin) Private Limited vs. The Assistant Commissioner Madras · 16 Oct 2026
