PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S KUANTUM PAPER LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/99/2019HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01148633201803 September 2019Bench: MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI,MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court condoned the delay of 157 days in refiling the appeal, allowing the application for condonation. The Court found the submission by the Revenue's counsel to be correct, that the facts of the present case were indeed covered by the Court's prior decision in ITA-449-2018. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal in the same terms as ITA-449-2018. The operative direction was that the present appeal stands disposed of in the same terms as in ITA-449-2018. The principle that can be cited is that if the facts of a subsequent appeal are identical to those in a previously decided appeal by the same court, the subsequent appeal will be decided in the same manner, and delay in refiling can be condoned if justified. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, represented by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Chandigarh, filed an appeal (ITA-99-2019) before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The appeal was against an order or action concerning M/s Kuantum Paper Ltd. The Revenue sought to condone a delay of 157 days in refiling the appeal. The learned counsel for the Revenue stated that the facts of the present case were covered by a previous decision of the same Court in ITA-449-2018, titled Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Chandigarh vs. M/s.Kuantum Papers Ltd. The Court found this statement to be correct.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 157 days in refiling the appeal should be condoned? (Question of procedure) Assessee's Contention: Not recorded. Revenue's Contention: The facts of the present case are covered by the decision of this Court in ITA-449-2018, and therefore, the appeal may be disposed of in the same terms. 2. Whether the present appeal should be decided in the same terms as ITA-449-2018? (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning the applicability of a precedent) Assessee's Contention: Not recorded. Revenue's Contention: The facts are covered by the decision in ITA-449-2018, and the appeal should be allowed as prayed for, following that precedent.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 119

ITA-99-2019 (O&M)

Date of Decision : 3.9.2019 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Chandigarh

...... Appellant Versus M/s Kuantum Paper Ltd. ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL Present : Mr. Yogesh Putney, Advocate for the appellant. *** AJAY TEWARI, J. (Oral) CM-3007-CII-2019 For the reasons recorded, the application is allowed. Delay of 157 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. Main Case Learned counsel states that the facts of the present case are covered by the decision of this Court passed in ITA-449-2018 titled as Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Chandigarh vs. M/s.Kuantum Papers Ltdl, SCO-18-19, First Floor Sector-8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh and prays that the present case may be dispose of in the same terms. We find this to be correct. Allowed as prayed for. The present appeal stands disposed of in the same terms as in ITA-449-2018. Anuradha 2019.09.04 16:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

ITA-99-2019 (O&M) -2- Since the main case has been decided, the pending CM, if any, also stands disposed of.

(AJAY TEWARI)

JUDGE (HARNARESH SINGH GILL) JUDGE 3.9.2019 anuradha Whether speaking/reasoned - Yes/No Whether reportable - Yes/No Anuradha 2019.09.04 16:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →