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

PDF · subscribers
ITA/317/2017HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01117522201715 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). 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. Consequently, the present appeal was dismissed in terms of the aforementioned judgment dated 14.11.2017 rendered in ITA No. 359 of 2017. The ratio decidendi is that if an issue has been conclusively decided by a higher court or a coordinate bench and affirmed by the Supreme Court, subsequent appeals raising the same issue should be disposed of in line with the established precedent.

What were the facts?

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula (the Revenue) filed an appeal before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh against an order concerning Haryana Financial Corporation (the Assessee). The appeal was filed under ITA No. 317 of 2017. The High Court was considering CM No. 27096-CII of 2018 in relation to this appeal. The Revenue's appeal was based on an issue that had been previously decided by a Division Bench of the same High Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the issue raised in the present appeal stands answered by the Division Bench of this Court 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, submitted that the issue in the present appeal has already been decided by a Division Bench of this Court in ITA No. 359 of 2017, which was subsequently affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Therefore, the present appeal should be dismissed in terms of that judgment. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the Revenue in opposition to the assessee's submission regarding the precedent. The appeal was presented by the Revenue, and the court's decision was based on the cited precedent.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No.27096-CII of 2018 in/& ITA No.317 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 →