THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH AND ANR.

PDF · subscribers

WP/5489/2005HC BombayHCBM01025962200512 June 2006Author: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE J.P. DEVADHAR,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE V.C. DAGA1 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the writ petition did not survive for want of cause of action, as the substantive appeal had already been disposed of. Furthermore, even if the petition were to be considered on merits, the court found no reason to differ with the view taken by the Tribunal. This was in light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Cus.& C.Ex., Ahmedabad V/s. Kumar Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd., which dealt with a para materia provision of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The court dismissed the petition in limine for the stated reasons. No specific amount in dispute was mentioned. No issue was left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The ITAT's order was in relation to an appeal concerning assessment year(s) not specified in the judgment. The substantive appeal, which was the subject matter of the writ petition, had already been disposed of. The petitioner argued that the ITAT's order was erroneous. The respondents were the ITAT and another party, presumably the assessee. The writ petition was filed in 2005.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the writ petition survives for consideration given that the substantive appeal has already been disposed of (question of law). 2. Whether the view taken by the Tribunal is erroneous, considering the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Cus.& C.Ex., Ahmedabad V/s. Kumar Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. (question of law). Assessee's arguments: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's arguments: The revenue, as the petitioner, argued that the ITAT's order was erroneous. They relied on the principle that a writ petition may not survive if the substantive appeal has been disposed of. They also sought to argue that the ITAT's view was contrary to the Apex Court's decision in Commissioner of Cus.& C.Ex., Ahmedabad V/s. Kumar Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITON NO.5489 OF 2005 WRIT PETITON NO.5489 OF 2005 WRIT PETITON NO.5489 OF 2005 The Dy.Commissioner of Income-tax ..Petitioner. V/s. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal & Anr. ..Respondents. Mr.Ashok Kotangale for petitioner. Mr.V.H.Patil with Ms.Aasifa Khan for respondents. CORAM : V.C. DAGA AND CORAM : V.C. DAGA AND CORAM : V.C. DAGA AND DATED : 12TH JUNE, 2006. DATED : 12TH JUNE, 2006. DATED : 12TH JUNE, 2006. P.C. :- P.C. :- P.C. :- Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The substantive appeal has already been disposed of. In that view of the matter, the petition does not survive for want of cause of action.

Even otherwise, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court while considering the para materia provision of the Central Excise Act, 1944 in the case of Commissioner of Cus.& C.Ex., Ahmedabad V/s. Kumar Commissioner of Cus.& C.Ex., Ahmedabad V/s. Kumar Commissioner of Cus.& C.Ex., Ahmedabad V/s. Kumar Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2005 (180) E.L.T. 2005 (180) E.L.T. 2005 (180) E.L.T. 434 (S.C.) 434 (S.C.) 434 (S.C.), no case is made out to differ with the view taken by the Tribunal.

The same is thus, dismissed in limine for the reasons stated in the order. (V.C. DAGA, J.) (V.C. DAGA, J.) (V.C. DAGA, J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →