Principal Commissioner Of vs. M/S Regent Beers And Wines Ltd.

ITA/263/2022HC Madhya Pradesh02 February 2024Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL2 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur held that no substantial question of law arises in the present appeal. The Court's decision was based on the submission made by the respondent's counsel that a co-ordinate bench of the same High Court had already considered and decided the identical question of law in ITA No. 271/2022, wherein the appeal was dismissed. The revenue's counsel was unable to distinguish the prior order. Consequently, the Tribunal found itself unable to hold that any substantial question of law warranted a decision in this appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed. No specific operative directions were issued as the appeal was dismissed on the preliminary ground of no substantial question of law.

What were the facts?

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), MP and CG, filed an Income Tax Appeal No. 263 of 2022 before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur. The appeal was against M/s Regent Beers and Wines Ltd. The revenue sought to challenge an order or action, though the specific order and assessment year(s) are not detailed in the provided text. The appeal was filed with a delay of six days, for which an application for condonation was allowed. The core of the matter revolved around whether a substantial question of law arose for consideration.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present appeal, thereby warranting admission. The Revenue, represented by Shri Siddharth Sharma, argued that the appeal should be heard. However, the Revenue was unable to distinguish the order passed by a co-ordinate bench of the High Court in ITA No. 271/2022 (Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ms. Regent Beers and Wines Ltd.), decided on 16.08.2023. The Respondent, M/s Regent Beers and Wines Ltd., through its counsel Shri Mallikarjun Khare, contended that the question of law involved in this case has already been considered and decided by a co-ordinate bench in a similar appeal (ITA No. 271/2022), which was dismissed. Therefore, no substantial question of law subsists.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN ON THE 2nd OF FEBRUARY, 2024 INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 263 of 2022 BETWEEN:- PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) MP AND CG, AAYAKAR BHAWAN HOSHANGABAD ROAD BHOPAL (M.P.) .....PETITIONER (BY SHRI SIDDHARTH SHARMA - ADVOCATE) AND M/S REGENT BEERS AND WINES LTD. THROUGH AUTHORIZED OFFICER 509-510, PRINCES BUSINESS SKY PARK SCHEME NO. 54, PU-3 COMMERCIAL VIJAY NAGAR, INDORE (M.P.) .....RESPONDENT (BY SHRI MALLIKARJUN KHARE- ADVOCATE) This appeal coming on for admission this day, Justice Sujoy Paul passed the following: ORDER I.A. No. 14648/2022 an application for condonation of delay of six days is taken up and in the absence of opposition the same is allowed. Delay is condoned. 2. At the outset Shri Mallikarjun Khare, counsel for respondent submits that the question of law/ point involved in this case is already considered by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in ITA No. 271/2022 (Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ms. Regent Beers and Wines Ltd.) decided on 16.08.2023 1 Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 2/2/2024 5:19:53 PM Signature Not Verified (SUJOY PAUL) JUDGE (VIVEK JAIN) JUDGE in which appeal is also dismissed. Thus, no substantial question of law subsists which needs to be decided in this appeal. 3. Shri Siddharth Sharma opposed the prayer but is unable to distinguish the order passed in ITA No. 271/2022. 4. In view of the said order, we are unable to hold that any substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Appeal is accordingly dismissed. MISHRA

2 Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 2/2/2024 5:19:53 PM Signature Not Verified

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →