PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANCHKULA vs. HARYANA FINANCIAL CORPORATION

PDF · subscribers
ITA/184/2018HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01119026201815 December 2018Bench: MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA MURARI,MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI1 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the issue raised in the present appeal had already been answered by a Division Bench of the same Court in ITA No.359 of 2017 (The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala Vs. State Bank of Patiala), decided on 14.11.2017. This earlier judgment was further affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court through the dismissal of a Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.24323 of 2018 on 8.11.2018. Consequently, the present appeal was dismissed in terms of the aforesaid judgment dated 14.11.2017. The ratio decidendi is that if a legal issue has been authoritatively decided by a higher court or a coordinate bench, and that decision has been affirmed by the Supreme Court, then subsequent appeals raising the same issue should follow the established precedent. No specific issue was left undecided.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula (Revenue) against Haryana Financial Corporation, Chandigarh (Assessee). The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated in the judgment. The appeal challenges an order passed by an Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (implied, as it's an appeal to the High Court). The procedural history involves the Revenue filing the present appeal before the High Court after an order from the Tribunal. The dispute amount is not specified.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the present appeal is to be dismissed in terms of the Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 14.11.2017 in ITA No.359 of 2017 (The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala Vs. State Bank of Patiala)? Assessee's Contention: The assessee, through their senior advocate, implicitly argued that the present appeal should be decided in line with the aforementioned judgment of the Division Bench, which was also affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. No specific arguments were recorded for the assessee beyond this reliance. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue, represented by its advocate, did not present any distinct arguments against the application of the precedent. Their participation was limited to the appeal being filed.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No.184 of 2018 (O&M) Date of Decision :15.12.2018 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula ......Appellant Versus Haryana Financial Corporation, Chandigarh ...... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNA MURARI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARUN PALLI, JUDGE Present : Mr. Yogesh Putney, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Radhika Suri, Sr. Advocate with Mr. M.S.Kanda, Advocate for the applicant/respondent. KRISHNA MURARI, CHIEF JUSTICE

(Oral)

: It is stated that the issue being raised herein stands answered by the Division Bench of this Court, vide judgment dated 14.11.2017, rendered in ITA No.359 of 2017 (The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala Vs. State Bank of Patiala), which has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court by dismissal of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.24323 of 2018, vide judgment and order dated 8.11.2018. In view of the above, this appeal stands dismissed, in terms of the judgment and order dated 14.11.2017, rendered in ITA No.359 of 2017. (KRISHNA MURARI) CHIEF JUSTICE (ARUN PALLI) JUDGE 15.12.2018

Manoj Bhutani

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MANOJ KUMAR 2018.12.18 10:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →