PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANCHKULA vs. HARYANA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, BAY NO. 17-19, SECTOR 17-A, CHANDIGARH

PDF · subscribers
ITA/312/2017HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01117517201715 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 answered by a Division Bench of the same court in ITA No.359 of 2017, decided on 14.11.2017. This earlier judgment was subsequently affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court through the dismissal of a Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.24323 of 2018 on 08.11.2018. Consequently, the present appeal was dismissed in terms of the aforementioned judgment and order dated 14.11.2017. The ratio decidendi is that if an issue has been conclusively decided by a higher court or a binding precedent from a coordinate bench, subsequent appeals on the same issue should follow that precedent. No specific IT Act sections were discussed in the operative part of the judgment.

What were the facts?

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula (appellant/revenue) filed an appeal against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The respondent is Haryana Financial Corporation, Chandigarh (assessee). The appeal pertains to Assessment Year(s) not specified in the judgment. The specific order or action under challenge and the authority that passed it are not detailed. The amount in dispute is not stated. The procedural history is that the revenue filed the present appeal before the High Court, and a Civil Miscellaneous Application (CM No.27095-CII of 2018) was also filed in relation to the appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should decide the present appeal on merits, or follow a previous judgment of the same court and the subsequent dismissal of a Special Leave Petition by the Supreme Court. The appellant (revenue) has not presented any arguments in this specific proceeding, as the matter was decided based on precedent. The respondent (assessee) has not presented any arguments in this specific proceeding, as the matter was decided based on precedent. The core issue is the applicability of the decision in ITA No.359 of 2017 (The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala Vs. State Bank of Patiala) and its affirmation by the Supreme Court.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No.27095-CII of 2018 in/& ITA No.312 of 2017 (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 →