MS HYCRON ELECTRONICS vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
What did the High Court hold?
The Tribunal held that both parties are in agreement that the issue in question is squarely covered by the judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in ITA No. 8/2018, which was subsequently affirmed by the Supreme Court in C.A. No. 1784/2019. Consequently, the directions and observations contained in these prior judgments shall apply to the present case mutatis mutandis. The Tribunal did not delve into the merits of the specific issue as it was bound by the precedent. The ratio decidendi is that if an issue is covered by a binding precedent from a higher court, the present case should be decided in accordance with that precedent. The operative direction is that the appeal is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgments. No issue was expressly left undecided.
What were the facts?
The appeal was filed by M/s Hycron Electronics (the assessee) against the Commissioner of Income Tax, Shimla (the revenue). The assessment year(s) are not specified in the judgment. The appeal challenges an order or action by the revenue, though the specific nature of the order is not detailed. The procedural history indicates that the parties are in agreement that the issue is covered by a previous judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in ITA No. 8/2018, titled M/s. Hycron Electronics vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, dated March 19, 2018. This prior judgment was, in turn, affirmed by the Supreme Court in C.A. No. 1784/2019, titled Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Shimla vs. M/s Aarham Softronics, dated February 20, 2019. The amount in dispute is not stated.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the issue in the present appeal is covered by the judgment of this Court in ITA No. 8/2018, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court in C.A. No. 1784/2019? (Question of law and fact). Assessee's Contention: The assessee, through its counsel, argued that the issue is squarely covered by the aforementioned judgments. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through its senior counsel, agreed with the assessee that the issue is covered by the cited judgments.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
J U D G M E N T
Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the issue in question is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in ITA No. 8/2018, titled as M/s. Hycron
2 19.3.2018, which in turn has been affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in C.A. No. 1784/2019, titled as Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Shimla vs. M/s Aarham Softronics, dated 20.2.2019. 2
In view of this, directions and observations contained in the aforesaid judgment(s) shall apply to this case also mutatis mutandis. 3
The appeal is disposed of, in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending application(s), if any.
(Tarlok Singh Chauhan)
Judge
(Chander Bhusan Barowalia) 23.12.2021
Judge (pankaj)
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Modern Engineers And Contractors vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- K Madhusudan Reddy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Sandeep Ranjan Rout vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Gagan Bihari Rout@Gagan Rout vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Biswanath Rana vs. The Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
