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

PDF · subscribers
ITA/194/2018HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01119037201815 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 has already been decided by a Division Bench of the same Court in ITA No.359 of 2017, dated 14.11.2017. This earlier judgment was further affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court through the dismissal of a Special Leave Petition. Consequently, in view of the binding precedent established by the Division Bench and affirmed by the Supreme Court, the present appeal was dismissed. The ratio decidendi is that if an issue has been conclusively decided by a higher court or a coordinate bench with subsequent affirmation by the Supreme Court, a subsequent appeal on the same issue would be dismissed. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal.

What were the facts?

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula (the Revenue) filed an appeal against Haryana Financial Corporation, Chandigarh (the Assessee). The appeal was filed before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated in the judgment. The order or action under challenge is the Revenue's appeal against a prior decision. The amount in dispute is not stated. The procedural history involves the Revenue filing this appeal after a decision by a Division Bench of the same High Court, which was subsequently affirmed by the Supreme Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the present appeal is to be dismissed in terms of the Division Bench judgment dated 14.11.2017 in ITA No.359 of 2017 (The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala Vs. State Bank of Patiala), which was affirmed by the Supreme Court. The Revenue argued that the issue raised in this appeal stands answered by the aforementioned Division Bench judgment. The Assessee relied on the same Division Bench judgment and the subsequent affirmation by the Supreme Court. No other arguments or provisions of the Income Tax Act were explicitly discussed.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No.194 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 →